The Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has unanimously approved the introduction of a disciplinary system for registered veterinary nurses from 1 April 2011.

The RCVS established the non-statutory Register for Veterinary Nurses in 2007, and says that registration signals a commitment from veterinary nurses to account for their professional practice.

Registered Veterinary Nurses (RVNs) commit to keep their skills up to date via mandatory continuing professional development and abide by the Guide to Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses. The disciplinary mechanism is the final component of this regulatory framework. From 1 April 2011, an RVN can be removed or suspended from the Register if found guilty of serious professional misconduct, fraudulent registration or criminal offences affecting his or her fitness to practise.

The decision has been awaited for some time, as according to the College, there has been some dispute about whether an RVN could be removed from the statutory List of Veterinary Nurses (meaning veterinary surgeons would be barred from delegating to them tasks allowed under Schedule 3 to the Veterinary Surgeons Act, such as medical treatment or minor surgery), as well as the non-statutory Register.

Following legal advice that it would not be appropriate to remove someone from a statutory list via a non-statutory regulatory system, RCVS Council and the Veterinary Nurses Council opted for removal from the Register only, with the caveat that any such removed VNs will be clearly identified on the List. In addition, veterinary surgeons will be advised, via the Guide to Professional Conduct, against delegating Schedule 3 tasks to them.

Council also confirmed that it would seek an amendment to Schedule 3 as soon as possible, to enable it to remove the names of nurses found guilty of serious professional misconduct or other charges from the List.

VN Council Chairman Liz Branscombe said: "The Veterinary Nurses Council is committed to moving towards statutory regulation for veterinary nurses. This non-statutory commitment to a disciplinary system is our chance to show government and the public that we are ready and willing to be regulated, which should stand us in good stead for the future."

The RVN disciplinary system will mirror that for veterinary surgeons, with the same complaints-handling, investigation and decision-making processes and sanctions.

Registered Veterinary Nurses will receive more detailed information about the system over the coming months.

Dunbartonshire-based Georgina Bretman has been struck off the Register of Veterinary Nurses by the RCVS VN Disciplinary Committee following her conviction in 2017 for causing unnecessary pain and suffering to an animal.

In August 2017, Georgina Bretman was found guilty of causing unnecessary pain and suffering to her two-year-old dog Florence by injecting the animal with insulin, causing the dog to suffer from hypoglycaemia, collapse, convulsions and seizures, for which it needed immediate veterinary treatment to avoid coma and death.

Following her conviction, Miss Bretman was sentenced to a Community Payback Order, with a requirement to carry out 140 hours of unpaid work. An order was also made to take Florence away from her and to ban her from owning a dog for two years. 

At the VN Disciplinary Committee hearing, Miss Bretman admitted the facts as contained within the charge against her and the Committee found the charge proved.

The Committee went on to consider whether the charge rendered Miss Bretman unfit to practise.

The Committee heard from Miss Bretman’s counsel, Mr O’Rourke QC who indicated that Miss Bretman accepted that her conviction rendered her unfit to practise as a Registered Veterinary Nurse. The Committee found Miss Bretman’s actions in deliberately administering a poisonous substance to  Florence thereby risking Florence’s death to be “very serious and deplorable conduct on the part of a veterinary nurse, a member of a profession specifically entrusted to look after and care for animals.” It also took into account the fact that Florence needed urgent veterinary treatment to avoid death and that Miss Bretman was in a position of trust over Florence as her owner.

Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "Miss Bretman’s conduct was also liable to have a seriously detrimental effect on the reputation of the profession and to undermine public confidence in the profession. The fact that she was a veterinary nurse was made clear at the trial and reported in the press. The Committee considered that members of the public would be rightly appalled that a Registered Veterinary Nurse had committed an offence of this kind.

The Committee was satisfied that this conduct fell far below the standard expected of a Registered Veterinary Nurse and that Miss Bretman’s conviction was of a nature and seriousness that rendered her unfit to practise."

The Committee then heard oral evidence from Miss Bretman in which she explained that she had always been passionate about working with animals and working in the veterinary profession and how she enjoyed her work as a veterinary nurse with a particular interest in hydrotherapy and rehabilitation.

She spoke about the devastating effect of the incident and the shame that was ‘brought down on her head’. She told the Committee that she had been suspended from her job and, since her conviction, had not worked as a veterinary nurse.

However, Miss Bretman said that, while she accepted and respected the verdict of the court, her stance remained that she had not done what was alleged and now hoped to rebuild her career as a veterinary nurse. She accepted that the offence of which she had been convicted was very serious, particularly for a veterinary nurse.

In considering Miss Bretman’s sanction the Committee took into account the aggravating and mitigating factors. Aggravating factors included the fact there was actual injury to an animal, that it was a pre-meditated and deliberate act against an animal for whom she was responsible, the fact that a medicinal product was misused, a lack of insight and a lack of remorse.

In mitigation the Committee took into account the fact she had no previous disciplinary history, had received positive references and testimonials and that, following the conviction, she demonstrated a willingness to be removed from the Register and to not work with animals to avoid causing embarrassment to the RCVS.

Stuart Drummond said: "The Committee was of the view that the nature and seriousness of Miss Bretman’s behaviour, which led to the conviction, was fundamentally incompatible with being registered as a veterinary nurse. The conduct represented a serious departure from professional standards; serious harm was deliberately caused to an animal; the continued denial of the offence demonstrated a complete lack of insight, especially in regard to the impact of her behaviour on public confidence and trust in the profession. In light of these conclusions, the Committee decided that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was removal from the Register.

"In reaching this decision the Committee recognised the impact this was likely to have on Miss Bretman, which was unfortunate given her young age and her obvious passion for a career as a veterinary nurse. The Committee had considered with care all the positive statements made about her in the references and testimonials provided. However, the need to protect animal welfare, the reputation of the profession and thus the wider public interest, outweighed Miss Bretman’s interests and the Committee concluded that removal was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction. The Committee determined that it was important that a clear message be sent that this sort of behaviour is wholly inappropriate and not to be tolerated. It brought discredit upon Miss Bretman and discredit upon the profession". 

The Committee then directed the RCVS Registrar to remove Miss Bretman’s name from the Register. Miss Bretman has 28 days from being notified of the Committee’s decision to submit an appeal.

The RCVS has announced that the nomination period for the 2015 RCVS and VN Council elections has opened until 5:00pm on Saturday 31 January 2015.

Each year six RCVS Council seats are contested while two seats are available for VN Council. Successful candidates serve four-year terms.

Existing RCVS Council members Niall Connell, Professor Sheila Crispin, Mark Elliott, Lynne Hill, Dr Bob Moore and Professor the Lord Trees of the Ross are due to retire from Council next year but are all eligible for re-election. Elizabeth Branscombe and Elizabeth Cox are due to retire from VN Council but will also be eligible to stand again in 2015.

In order to stand, candidates for either RCVS or VN Council will need to complete a nomination form, submit a short biography, write a short personal statement and supply a high resolution digital photo.

Each candidate will also need to provide two nominations - for RCVS Council candidates this should be two veterinary surgeons on the RCVS Register who are not current RCVS Council members; for VN Council candidates nominators must be registered or listed VNs who are not current VN Council members.

The election period commences in early March 2015 and runs until Friday 24 April. Successful candidates for either Council will take up their seats at RCVS Day - the College's Annual General Meeting and Awards Day - on Friday 10 July 2015.

Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar, said: "After a record 19 candidates - of which over half were women ­- for last year's RCVS Council elections, and a good showing for VN Council as well, we hope to build on that momentum this year by attracting candidates of all ages and backgrounds.

"Through their participation in the Councils and their committees members can have a big impact on the future of their respective professions by developing policy and making decisions in areas of key importance such as education and professional standards."

Nomination forms, guidance notes and frequently asked questions for RCVS Council candidates can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil15. The equivalent documents for VN Council candidates can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/vncouncil15.

Last year the RCVS produced two short videos outlining what is involved in being a Council member, the benefits it can bring and the amount of time it requires. These can be found at www.youtube.com/rcvsvideos

Prospective candidates are also invited to attend a 'Meet the RCVS Day' at Belgravia House on Tuesday 25 November where they will have the opportunity to find out more about the role of the College and RCVS and VN Council members as well as having a tour of the building and the opportunity to talk to staff.

Those who are interested in attending should contact Fiona Harcourt, Events Officer, on f.harcourt@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0773.

The RCVS has announced that it will increase its fees, including registration and annual renewal fees for veterinary nurses, by 4% for the 2023/24 financial year.

The increase, which was approved by the Privy Council on Thursday 2 March, will mean that the standard annual renewal fee for veterinary nurses (which must be paid on or before 1 November 2023) will increase by £3 to £77.

The full list of RCVS fees can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/how-we-work/fees

Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, said: “We are proud that all throughout the pandemic period, when we know that many were struggling, we managed to keep our fees at the same level in the 2020/21, 2021/22, and 2022/23 fee years.

“The increase that we proposed to the Privy Council is very modest, particularly in comparison to the overall levels of inflation that the British economy has experienced over the past year, which has had an impact on our costs.

“While we appreciate that any rise in fee levels will not be welcomed by everyone, we can assure all members of the professions that we are continuing to use our income prudently and with oversight from our Audit & Risk and Finance & Resources Committees.”

As the increase has been confirmed by the Privy Council, annual renewal fee notifications will be sent to all veterinary surgeons in early March.

Republic of Ireland-based Gary Adams has been suspended from the Register for two years after he was convicted of 34 charges related to prescribing veterinary medicines.

Mr Adams was convicted at Gorey District Court, County Wexford, Republic of Ireland in March 2015 for:

• Nine offences of prescribing animal remedies to animals not under his care;

• Five offences of forging entries in official animal remedies records owned by farmers to suggest he had made visits to farms when he had not;

• Seven offences of dispensing a prescription-only animal remedy but not preparing a veterinary prescription containing the details of the animals;

• Two offences of failing to affix labels in the required form to prescription-only items when selling or supplying animal remedies;

• Six offences of failing to annotate the dispensed prescriptions with the word ‘dispensed’ and failing to sign and date them;

• Three offences of failing to keep a record or purchases and sales (including quantities administered) in respect of each incoming and outgoing transaction; and

• Two offences of selling animal remedies on a wholesale basis without an animal wholesaler’s licence.

The charges related to treatment of animals not under his care throughout 2012 and 2013 which were investigated by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine in the Republic of Ireland. 

In relation to these convictions Mr Adams received a 12-month prison sentence, suspended for two years, was fined a total of €40,000 and ordered to pay costs of €16,400. 

Following his conviction his conduct was considered by the Veterinary Council of Ireland’s (VCI) Fitness to Practice Committee and, in September 2017, the VCI a sanction of 12 months’ suspension from its Register. This sanction was upheld by the High Court in the Republic of Ireland in November 2017.

As well as being a registered veterinary surgeon in the Republic of Ireland, Mr Adams was also on the UK-practising Register with the RCVS, so his convictions were considered under the College’s own complaints and disciplinary process.

At the outset of the hearing, Mr Adams admitted the charges and accepted his convictions rendered him unfit to practise. The College also asserted that Mr Adams' convictions rendered him unfit to practise, noting a number of aggravating factors including the risk of injury to animals, dishonesty, premeditation, financial gain and misconduct sustained and repeated over time. 

In considering the College’s case and Mr Adams’ own admissions, the Disciplinary Committee agreed that his conduct rendered him unfit to practise veterinary surgery. 

Professor Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee found the conduct to be at the serious end of the spectrum for such misconduct, it being systematic, prolonged and illegal conduct relating to the supply of animal remedies which posed a significant risk to human and animal health.

"Accordingly, the Committee found that the convictions which led to these charges cumulatively render Mr Adams unfit to practise."

In considering the sanction, the Disciplinary Committee took into account a number of mitigating factors including that he had been practising since 1993 and had no previous disciplinary findings, had made open and frank admissions at all stages to the College and had practised between April 2013, when the matters first came to light, and February 2018, when he was suspended by the Veterinary Council of Ireland, without incident. 

It also considered the conditions that were imposed upon Mr Adams by the VCI in terms of notification that he was intending to return to practice, auditing of his practice, his continuing professional development (CPD) and having to undertake personal and professional support programmes and arrangements for professional mentorship for one year after his return to practice. 

In view of the sanctions already imposed by the court in Ireland, and his suspension by the VCI, the Disciplinary Committee decided that a period of two years’ suspension from the UK Register of Veterinary Surgeons was the appropriate sanction.

Professor Barr said: "Whilst Mr Adams would be able to practise in the Republic of Ireland before he was able to practise in the United Kingdom again, the Committee considered that the conditions attached to his supervision in Ireland meant that he would be subject to close supervision before he was allowed to practise again in the United Kingdom and that only a longer period of suspension would allow this to happen.

"The Committee therefore decided that only a suspension of two years would maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct for the serious nature of these charges."

Mr Adams has 28 days from being informed about the Disciplinary Committee’s decision to make an appeal to the Privy Council.

The RCVS has announced that Kit Sturgess will officially take up the post of Treasurer at RCVS Day, tomorrow.

Kit was appointed by RCVS Council at its June meeting, making him responsible for maintaining an overview of the College’s financial affairs, ensuring the College’s financial viability, and making sure proper records and procedures are maintained. 

Kit replaces Dr Amanda Boag who was elected Junior Vice-President by RCVS Council at its March meeting. He has been an RCVS Council Member since 2013 and currently sits on the Standards Committee, as well as lecturing, writing and other projects such as teaching at the local primary school. He also works three days a week seeing clinical cases in both referral and primary care practices.

Kit said: "I am very honoured to have been appointed Treasurer, and look forward to continuing Amanda’s careful stewardship of the College finances with the support of other Council members and the team at Belgravia House.

"Due to uncertainties surrounding the impact of Brexit and increasing inflation, RCVS Council decided at its June meeting to increase the annual renewal fees for veterinary surgeons. I am confident that this will keep the College finances in a healthy state, and I look forward to building on Amanda’s legacy ensuring that the College remains steady over the course of my tenure."

At RCVS Day Amanda will also be made Junior Vice-President, and Dr Stephen May will take up the position of RCVS President for 2017-2018. 

The RCVS DC has directed that a Wirral-based veterinary surgeon should be removed from the Register after finding that he had treated clients badly, kept inadequate clinical records, was dishonest in dealing with the RCVS, and that animals in his care were placed at risk.

At the end of the five-day hearing, the Committee found that Ian Beveridge, of the Daryl Veterinary Centre, Heswall, was guilty of charges relating to two separate cases: one concerning a crossbred bitch named Holly, who belonged to Mr and Mrs Flanagan and was treated in February 2011; and the other, a cat called Blu, belonging to Ms Simpson and treated in March 2010.

On the morning of 23 February 2011, Holly was admitted to the Daryl Veterinary Centre in a collapsed state with a swollen abdomen. The Committee found a proper assessment should have led Mr Beveridge to perform an abdominocentesis at the practice, the results of which, in view of the practice and its facilities, would inevitably have led to Holly immediately being referred elsewhere. However, the Committee heard that Mr Beveridge simply placed her on a heat pad for observation until about midday, something it considered no reasonably competent veterinary surgeon in general practice would have done. The Committee also found that, on more than one occasion, Mr Beveridge had refused to discuss referral with Mrs Flanagan, and this amounted to failing to treat her with courtesy and respect as required by the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct 2010, which applied at that time. Holly was ultimately referred elsewhere and survived. The Committee also found the records of Holly's admission to be completely inadequate.

Blu was presented on 22 March 2010 in a collapsed state by Mr Taylor, Ms Simpson's former partner with whom the cat lived. The Committee found that Mr Taylor was told that the cat would be kept on a heat pad, that no other treatment or diagnosis was discussed, and that the possibility of euthanasia was not raised. Having been unable to contact Mr Beveridge that evening, Ms Simpson went to the practice the following morning, intending that her cat be discharged and taken elsewhere. However, the Committee found, when Mr Beveridge eventually fetched Blu, who had died, he blocked Mrs Simpson's exit from the consulting room, saying words to the effect that had she been a better owner, none of this would have happened.

Mr Beveridge also sent to the College clinical records for Blu detailing a blood sample taken at 19.00 on 22 March, and subcutaneous fluids administered during that night. The Committee found this to contain deliberately false information in order to cast a better light on his management of Blu and that he was dishonest; the document was essentially a fabrication to enhance his own interests.

In reaching its decision, the Committee said that it made allowances for the fact that Mr Beveridge operated in first-opinion practice at a basic level. Notwithstanding this, however, it found him guilty of a very serious failure of care to both patients, which gave rise to serious risks to their safety and welfare.

Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "On each occasion [Mr Beveridge] treated the owners with a lack of courtesy and respect and made the difficult and distressing circumstances in which they found themselves much worse than they need have been. The Committee takes a very serious view of his attempt to prevent Ms Simpson leaving the consulting room with Blu, and of the unjust and upsetting way in which he sought to blame her for the animal's death. He showed her no consideration at all. Likewise his refusal to contemplate referral for Holly until compelled by Mrs Flanagan to do so and his persistent refusal to engage with her about this at all was, in the Committee's view, reprehensible."

The Committee directed Mr Beveridge's name should be removed from the Register.

Warrington-based Natalia Oakes MRCVS has been given a formal warning by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after it found a number of charges proved in relation to incorrect certification about the conditions of a greyhound kennel.

The Disciplinary Committee heard that Miss Oakes had signed a Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB) Veterinary Surgeons Residential Kennel Inspection Form which indicated that there were 55 greyhounds in the kennel, when there were in fact more; that she had stated that the kennels were in an acceptable condition, when they were in fact not; and that she knew the form was inaccurate and/or was dishonest in relation to what she had indicated on the form.

The kennels in question, Rough Cottage, were owned by Louise Eccles and her husband, Rod Eccles. Mrs Eccles was licensed by GBGB as a trainer, allowing her to train and race greyhounds and making the kennels accountable to inspections by veterinary surgeons.

At the time of the form in question, Miss Oakes had been attending Rough Cottage for about a year-and-a-half on a monthly basis, up through August 2016. At that point, on or around 1 August 2016, Mrs Eccles had left Rough Cottage for personal reasons.

Miss Oakes subsequently visited the premises on 14 August 2016 along with Amanda Gething of Northern Greyhound Rescue, when she learned that rather than there being 55 dogs, there were more than 80. 

On 16 August, she and Amanda Gething returned to Rough Cottage with Lucille Cavadino, from Lancky Dogs, a greyhound rescue organisation. They became aware of the existence of kennels on the premises that were not of acceptable standard, but Miss Oakes found that the dogs housed in these kennels were fit and healthy.

Miss Oakes also spoke to Mr Eccles around this time, and although he had plans to rehouse some of the dogs she was concerned that he might change his mind. Miss Oakes took the decision to complete and sign the kennel inspection form that Mr Eccles had handed to her, knowing that the details contained therein were incorrect. She stated that the reason that she did this was to appease Mr Eccles so that he would not hinder the plans to remove and rehouse the dogs. She admitted to the area GBGB Stipendiary Steward that she had signed the form and that it contained incorrect information.

At the beginning of the hearing Miss Oakes admitted all the charges except for the final one, namely that she had been dishonest about what she had indicated on the form. When she gave evidence during the hearing, however, she admitted that she had been dishonest and so all charges were found proved.

The Committee then turned to deciding whether these charges, having been found proven, would result in a finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect against Miss Oakes. The Committee considered her motives in signing the form were to try and safeguard animal welfare, but considered that she was misguided in how she chose to achieve that aim. The Committee, therefore, found that signing a form that is known to be misleading or inaccurate is in definite breach of the Code of Professional Conduct, and concluded that her conduct constituted disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

When considering a suitable sanction, the Committee took into account a number of mitigating factors, including some 62 testimonials that were submitted in favour of Miss Oakes, and the fact that she believed she was acting in the best interests of the animals’ welfare.

Chitra Karve, Chair of the Disciplinary Committee, said: "So far as mitigating factors are concerned, the Committee is satisfied that the Respondent’s motivation for what she did was governed by her overwhelming wish to promote the health or welfare of the greyhounds at Rough Cottage.

"The Committee is satisfied that no actual harm or risk of harm to any animal occurred in this case. There was no financial gain to the Respondent and the Committee has been told that she charged no fee for her extensive efforts in organising or assisting with the removal and rehousing of the greyhounds from Rough Cottage.

"The Committee considers that this was a single and isolated incident and that the risks of similar behaviour being repeated in the future are low."

Chitra added: "The Committee has decided that it will be sufficient to protect the welfare of animals, to maintain public confidence in the profession and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct, for the Respondent to be given a formal warning as to her future conduct."

The RCVS Mind Matters Initiative is to host its fifth biennial mental health research symposium to highlight current contributions to veterinary mental health research from around the globe on Friday 10th October from 9am to 5pm at The Eastside Rooms in Birmingham, UK.

The theme for the symposium this year is ‘Advancing veterinary mental health research: learning from the past, considering the present, and looking to the future’.

The day will consist of a variety of oral presentations and poster presentations, and there will be a number of exhibitors, including charitable organisations and wider animal health and welfare organisations.

The College is inviting all those interested in the field of veterinary mental health to attend the day.

RCVS Council member and Chair of the Mind Matters Initiative, Dr Louise Allum, said: “Our symposium presents a fantastic opportunity for knowledge exchange in the veterinary mental health sphere so that, together, we can continue to foster a compassionate environment and build a solid evidence-base for veterinary mental health research to grow and evolve.

“This is an inclusive event open to all with an interest in veterinary mental health including vets, nurses, students, practice managers, academics, healthcare professionals, policy makers, mental health advocates and everyone in between.”

MMI Lead Rapinder Newton added: “We have come a long way in developing our understanding of mental health in veterinary professionals over the past ten years but still have a way to go.

“Only through continued collaboration with mental health researchers, and learning from other allied professions, can we efficiently work towards our shared goal of enhancing mental health and support within the veterinary professions.

“This is why events such as our symposium are so important.

"Veterinary mental health is a small but growing field. Creating environments for open discussion and networking are key to advancing our understanding of where the challenges lie.

"By extension, this also plays an invaluable role in learning how research can be applied in a practical manner to help improve the lives of veterinary professionals which, ultimately, aids in upholding animal health and welfare too.”

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/mind-matters-initiative-research-symposium-2025-tickets-1247144485729 

The RCVS is reminding veterinary surgeons and nurses that there is one week left till the deadline for nominations for the 2012 RCVS and RCVS VN Council elections.

Nominations must be made in writing on the prescribed form and received by the RCVS on or before 31 January 2012.

Prospective candidates need to provide the signatures and registered/listed addresses of two proposers, and should also submit a short biography, manifesto and photograph for inclusion in the RCVS News Extra election specials.

Nobody may nominate more than one candidate, and no current member of the RCVS Council or VN Council may make a nomination.

Full details and guidance notes for both elections are available online from the RCVS Council Election page (www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil12) and VN Council Election page (www.rcvs.org.uk/vncouncil12).

Nomination forms and candidate information forms for RCVS Council may also be requested from Mrs Gabriella Braun (020 7202 0761 or executiveoffice@rcvs.org.uk) and those for VN Council from Mrs Annette Amato (020 7202 0713 or a.amato@rcvs.org.uk).

Six seats on RCVS Council and two on VN Council are due to be filled in the 2012 elections.

Those elected will take their seats on RCVS Day in July, to serve four-year terms, and will be expected to spend at least six to eight days a year attending Council meetings, working parties and subcommittees (a loss-of-earnings allowance is available).

The RCVS has announced that Council has approved significant changes to the set-up of Veterinary Nurses (VN) Council in order to improve its governance and available skillsets.

The main changes include a shortening of the term of office for VN Council members from four years to three years, the introduction of a three-term limit for elected members with a two-year gap before they can re-stand for VN Council and changing the size and  composition of VN Council to six elected veterinary nurses, two appointed veterinary nurses, two appointed veterinary surgeons and four appointed lay members.

Prior to the proposals being approved the composition of VN Council was eight elected veterinary nurses, four appointed veterinary surgeon members, and four appointed lay members.

The proposals had been developed by members of VN Council following a series of workshops in January this year, where issues such as the size and composition of VN Council, the availability of appropriate skills and knowledge amongst members and the support and guidance available for members were considered.

The College says that the reduction of the number of elected veterinary nurse members means that there will be no elections to VN Council in 2018 as the outgoing members will not need to be replaced.

Liz Cox, Chair of VN Council, said: "We are very pleased that RCVS Council has agreed to our proposals to make significant changes to VN Council.

"When we started to consider the governance of VN Council it became clear that the current arrangements did not accurately reflect the breadth of skills and knowledge amongst veterinary nurses that would be required to meet the challenges confronting the profession and make decisions on its behalf.

"By making the composition of VN Council more flexible by introducing shorter terms and appointed veterinary nurses, we hope that we can widen the pool of potential members, bring in ‘new blood’ to provide a wider range of experience and different perspectives and, as a result, enhance the quality of debate and decision-making amongst the members.

"We will also be making concerted efforts to provide additional skills and training to new members on their roles and responsibilities and will set up a mentoring system so that they are paired with existing VN Council members who can show them the ropes."

The full details of the agreed changes can be found in the papers for RCVS Council’s November meeting: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/who-we-are/rcvs-council/council-meetings/2-november-2017/

Information about VN Council, including its current members, can be found here: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/who-we-are/vn-council/

The RCVS and the BVA have issued a joint statement following yesterday's announcements that Scotland and England will go into new national lockdowns as the UK coronavirus alert level has been raised to 5.

"We are urgently looking at what these new national lockdowns will mean for veterinary professionals and services, and we are liaising with the Chief Veterinary Officers.

"We aim to issue updated guidance in the coming days but can confirm that we will not be reverting to emergency-only work, as we saw at the start of the first UK-wide lockdown last March.

"Instead, we are developing guidance to support veterinary professionals to carry out work that is essential for public health and animal health and welfare, in the context of the very strong ‘stay at home’ messages from both governments.

"We recognise that this continues to be a very challenging and difficult time for our colleagues, and we want to thank veterinary teams across the UK for continuing to work safely so that we can all play our part in stopping the spread of Covid.

"Once again we thank animal owners for their understanding and ask them to continue to respect their vets’ decisions at this time. The range of services available will vary between practices so that vets can work in Covid-safe ways to keep their colleagues and clients safe."

The eminent equine vet, Dr Sue Dyson FRCVS, has been struck off for a series of dishonest statements and actions, including fabricating a letter from a fictitious Home Office Inspector, in order to have her research project published in an international publication.

The Disciplinary Committee heard that in 2018, when Dr Dyson was employed as Head of Clinical Orthopaedics at the Animal Health Trust (AHT), she completed a research project: ‘Influence of rider: horse body weight ratios on equine welfare and performance – a pilot study’, for which she had previously been given the go-ahead by the AHT’s Clinical Research Ethics Committee. The results of the study were then submitted to the Journal of Veterinary Behaviour: Clinical Applications and Research for publication.

After peer-reviewing the project paper at the request of Journal Editor Karen Overall, Dr Matthew Parker, a Senior Lecturer in Behavioural Pharmacology at the University of Portsmouth, was concerned by the lack of a Home Office licence and asked for details of the licence or an explanation of why the project didn’t need one, and for the paper to be re-submitted.

In reply, Dr Dyson then emailed Ms Overall saying: “We have a former Home Office Inspector on our AHT Ethical Committee and two current licence holders (Named Veterinary Surgeons) who are fully conversant with the current legislation ... I also sought informal advice from a current Inspector. All were fully aware of the protocols to be employed and gave me assurance that in their opinion Home Office approval would not be required”.

Ms Overall then asked Dr Dyson to obtain a letter from the Home Office to support this position.

On 24 December 2018, Dr Dyson sent Ms Overall a letter purportedly from a Home Office Inspector called Dr Butler who, she explained, had advised her during the planning phase of the project. In the letter, the fictitious Dr Butler confirmed that their advice was sought for the project and that in their opinion, a Home Office Licence was not required.

Ms Overall then sent the letter to Dr Parker for further review, who decided to contact Dr Martin Whiting, Head of Operations at the Home Office Animals in Science Regulation Unit (ASRU) to ask if he knew of Dr Butler.

Dr Whiting confirmed that the Home Office had no record of employing a Dr Butler as an Inspector and that they were in the process of making further inquiries into the matter.

After Dr Whiting’s reply was forwarded to Dr Dyson, she replied to him saying that she thought the studies’ procedures did not meet the criteria for the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA), but that this was questioned by peer reviewers.

She said that her decision to send Dr Butler’s letter was one that she would ‘eternally regret’ and that she was ‘an inherently honest person’.

She explained that she was under a huge amount of pressure in her personal and professional life and that she was ‘fully aware that [she] acted completely inappropriately and she requested the incident be overlooked’.

In March 2019, Dr Dyson sent a letter to William Reynolds, Head of the Home Office ASRU, in which she expressed remorse for writing the letter. Mr Reynolds subsequently raised a concern with the RCVS about Dr Dyson’s alleged behaviour. 

Dr Jane Downes, who chaired the Disciplinary Committee, and spoke on its behalf, said: “The Committee heard from Dr Dyson that she had no recollection of several events detailed in the charge, including writing the letter from Dr Butler and sending the email to Ms Overall which contained Dr Butler’s letter. She accepted that the letter was dishonest and that it should not have been sent. However, she also claimed that, as she could not remember writing the letter, she did not act dishonestly.

The Committee heard testimonials from several witnesses who held Dr Dyson in high regard, including colleagues from the AHT, who attested to her integrity.

However, there were many dubious claims made by Dr Dyson throughout the hearing, including that the Home Office Inspector that she referenced as ‘my friendly inspector’ was someone who could have given informed consent to a project as Dr Dyson confirmed that she had met the individual briefly, around two and a half years ago at a drinks reception.

In reaching its decisions, the Committee considered Dr Dyson’s previously impeccable character, the written and verbal testimonies from witnesses. They also considered that during the hearing, Dr Dyson explained that at the time she fabricated the letter, she was under a lot of work and personal pressures, including managing a workload amidst colleagues’ resigning or going on maternity leave and it being the anniversary of her dog having to be humanely destroyed.

However, it did not accept Dr Dyson’s claims that she had amnesia at this time, and considered that she had not owned up to her wrongdoing until it was discovered. Although Dr Dyson maintained her actions were not pre-meditated, the Committee considered that, in the case of the forged letter, a certain amount of planning and careful thought was involved. The Committee believed that Dr Dyson knew what she was doing at the time, but acknowledged she may subsequently have blanked out what she did.

The Committee found all but one of the allegations proved and confirmed that it “was satisfied that the writing and sending of that letter was the culmination of a course of dishonest conduct.”

Committee Chair Dr Downes said: “In assessing [the evidence of] Dr Dyson the Committee took into account the difficulty faced by any Respondent appearing before their Regulator and also the various interruptions occasioned by issues which had to be dealt with during her evidence. Whilst [Dr Dyson is] undoubtedly highly qualified and highly respected, the Committee nevertheless considered her evidence lacked credibility and was not reliable.”

The Committee found that Dr Dyson’s conduct had breached parts of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons and amounted to serious professional misconduct.

Dr Downes continued: “The Committee determined that it was important that a clear message be sent that this sort of behaviour is wholly inappropriate and [was] not to be tolerated. It brings discredit upon Dr Dyson and discredit upon the profession.

"For whatever reason, Dr Dyson chose not to respond to Ms Overall’s email on 30th November 2018 in an honest and straightforward way. Instead, she lied about the makeup of the AHT Ethical Committee in order to cloak her response with authority.

"She also lied about having received advice from a current Inspector for the same reason. In the Committee’s view, she made a conscious decision to provide a dishonest response. She no doubt believed that would be the end of the matter.

"When that did not work, she lied further in the email to her co-author, Andrew Hemmings, claiming to have a letter from her friendly Inspector. When that too did not work, she impersonated a Home Office Inspector in creating the ‘Dr Butler letter’.

"She then added a false declaration to the manuscript, which she subsequently submitted to the Journal along with an email containing yet further lies. That was all done in a blatant and wilful attempt to deceive Ms Overall ... into believing the contents of the correspondence to be true, that confirmation a Home Office Licence was not required had been obtained and all was therefore well with the submitted manuscript.

"There was no rush, or urgency to have the paper published and the actions were not done in a moment of panic. No doubt she had not planned the entire course of events in advance, but instead reacted to each new obstacle that came her way, but her overall course of dishonest conduct spanned over three weeks.

“The Committee was well aware of the impact and ramifications for Dr Dyson of any decision to remove her from the Register but had to weigh her interests with those of the public.

"In doing so it took account of the context and circumstances of the case, all matters of personal mitigation, as detailed above, Dr Dyson’s undoubted distinguished international career and reputation and the need to act proportionally.

"However, for all the reasons given above, the Committee was of the view that the need to uphold proper standards of conduct within the veterinary profession, together with the public interest in maintaining confidence in the profession of veterinary surgeons, meant that a period of suspension would not be sufficient and that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in all the circumstances of this case was that of removal from the Register."