View all veterinary jobs
Jane (or John) Doe was charged with having stolen midazolam, butorphanol and promethazine hydrochloride from their practice for use other than for veterinary purposes, making false clinical records concerning the use of drugs on their own dogs to disguise the fact that the drugs were instead being used for non-veterinary uses, and drawing up medication taken from the practice into a syringe for the purpose of self-medicating.
In addition, they were charged that their conduct was dishonest.
The Committee found it proven that Jane/John Doe had taken approximately 150 vials of midazolam, 87 ampoules, 112 tablets and one elixir bottle of promethazine hydrocholoride, and 0.2mls of butorphanol together with Iml of midazolam for their dog at a time when their dog was, in fact, dead.
The Committee also found it proven that the defendant had drawn up medication for the purpose of self-medicating, and had created false clinical records.
In deciding the sanction, the Committee concluded that the respondent had abused their position of trust, that their actions were dishonest, prolonged and repeated in nature, and undermined the reputation of the profession as a whole.
Therefore the only appropriate action was removal from the Register.
Unusually, the RCVS did not issue a press release about this case, as it normally does.
There was also a protracted delay between the hearing and the report of the hearing being published on the College website.
Furthermore, when it was finally published, the report had been redacted to remove any reference to the name, gender or location of the respondent.
When asked why, the College said: "Matters of a highly confidential nature arose following the hearing which led to a delay in the decisions being published.
“The decisions have been redacted and we cannot provide the reasons for the redactions as that would necessarily involve disclosure of confidential and personal information.
"However, the circumstances are considered to be exceptional and the College’s decision to make the redactions was only made following very careful consideration of evidence provided to the RCVS.
"The decision has been published on the RCVS website in its redacted form and in view of the timeframe and the circumstances, it has not been considered appropriate to issue a press release.”
CommentThe College will for sure have had very good reasons for redacting the name of the respondent in this case.
One has to assume there must have been a very real threat to the respondent’s life, and under those circumstances, confidentiality is absolutely right and proper.
However, whatever the reason, secrecy is never a good look, especially when it comes in the form of a cape worn by a regulator.
So it is frustrating to hear that the College has again made a rod for its own back, when it could so easily have included a very general one-line explanation for why it felt redaction was necessary, without compromising the individual’s confidentiality.
It would have been enough, for example, just to say that the College felt there was a risk to life. People would accept that.
The nurse was suspended from the Register for three months after admitting dishonesty over a dog's bile acid stimulation test, falsely saying she had taken a second blood sample when she had not.
She also admitted removing blood from the first sample and presenting and/or labelling it as if it were a second sample, falsely telling colleagues that the second sample had been taken, and falsely saying a veterinary nurse colleague had assisted her.
She also admitted a second charge that she had been dishonest and misleading.
The Committee said the conduct breached the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses on honesty, integrity, trust and accountability.
It found aggravating factors including a risk of harm to the dog, breaches of employer and colleague trust, false implication of a colleague in the dishonesty, and repeated misconduct.
In mitigation, it said there had been no actual harm to the dog.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "All the charges found proved involved not only misleading statements or behaviour but also dishonesty.
"On three occasions the respondent lied to her colleague about having taken a second blood sample.... BAST is an important test of liver function.
"Such behaviour struck at the heart of the profession of an RVN where honesty is crucial in the undertaking of professional work and is a fundamental tenet of the profession.
"The respondent breached the trust of her colleague as well as her employer's trust, and had the potential to interfere in the care which was being given to the dog... thereby creating a clinical risk, because the correct procedure was not being carried out, and the veterinary surgeon did not know about this.
"The Respondent did not act in the dog's interests."
In deciding sanction, the Committee considered a medical report on the nurse's ill-health at the time, along with mitigating factors including no financial gain, limited opportunity for reflection, insight and remorse, positive testimonials, admissions, a previously unblemished career, and the fact the dishonesty was confined to a single day.
It also said the dishonesty was not premeditated, but arose after she had mistakenly fed the dog when she should not have, meaning the second blood sample should not then have been taken.
Paul added: "The respondent has insight into her conduct and as set out above, there is no real risk of repetition.
"There are no concerns about the respondent's competence or clinical practice in general, and there is no evidence that she would be unfit to return to practice after a period of suspension.
"This process has been a salutary lesson.
"The Committee, therefore, concluded that a period of suspension of three months would be proportionate in this case."
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/veterinary-professionals/conduct-and-guidance/concerns-for-veterinary-professionals/disciplinary-committee-hearings
Ed's note: I've always reported disciplinary hearing results on the basis that like aircraft accident crash reports, they often provide a lesson others can learn from. It's also important for judgments to be scrutinised. But on reflection, I've decided to stop reporting names - on the basis that it doesn't really add anything except further ignominy on the person who's already paid their penalty.
In the video, Neil says the presidential task he most looks forward to is admitting new veterinary surgeons and nurses to the Register. There have been 740 registrations made as part of graduation ceremonies across the UK's seven veterinary schools this summer.
Neil said: "It's a great privilege to welcome these new graduates to the College. Graduation represents a culmination of such a long period of hard work - supported by family, friends and vet school staff. It's also the start of what I hope will be satisfying lifelong careers in a profession that is proud to keep animal health and welfare at its heart.
"I hope that this latest generation of veterinary surgeons will benefit from the broad range of career opportunities available, just as the animal-owning public will benefit from their skills and knowledge."
On graduation, all new veterinary surgeons received a memory stick from the College, which included a Guide for New Members, the Code of Professional Conduct, CPD Record Card, information about the Professional Development Phase, which is mandatory for all new graduates working in clinical practice, and other College publications. If any new graduate did not receive their memory stick, they should contact membership@rcvs.org.uk.
The new guidance will remove the absolute requirement for veterinary surgeons to perform a physical examination before prescribing POM medicines, making it instead a matter for professional judgement.
However, the proposed new guidance also imposes a requirement for veterinary surgeons who do NOT physically examine the animal prior to prescribing to provide a 24/7 follow-up service which includes a physical examination.
Furthermore, the new guidance will state that: "Where the veterinary surgeon is not able to provide this service [the physical exam] themselves, they should arrange for another veterinary service provider to do so. This arrangement should be made before veterinary services are offered and confirmed in writing as part of the conditions of service agreed by the client."
This requirement to provide a physical 24/7 follow-up would appear to safeguard animal welfare and protect against the risk of online-only businesses (in the UK or abroad) with lower overheads cherry-picking the job of prescribing medicines.
It should also protect against veterinary surgeons feeling pressured to prescribe inappropriately, because the new, stricter requirements will make it easier for them to decline to do so.
However, the BVA doesn't agree with the new proposals. It feels that remote prescribing should be delivered under the auspices of a Veterinary Client-Patient-Relationship (VCPR), which, according to the American Veterinary Medical Association, requires a physical examination.
BVA President Malcolm Morley, said: “The changes to ‘under care’ guidance are a watershed moment, so it’s positive to see that they have evolved in response to feedback from the profession. New technology presents exciting opportunities to enhance existing veterinary services and has benefits for practices as well as clients and their animals.
"However, BVA has been very clear that we believe remote prescribing can only be safely delivered where a vet-client-patient relationship has been established.
"This is an internationally recognised concept, and we are disappointed that the RCVS has decided not to embrace it.
“Having voted to implement these changes, it is incumbent upon the RCVS and the profession to scrutinise how they play out.
"At BVA we plan to develop advice and resources to support our members and help them comply with the new guidance and realise any benefits of remote veterinary service provision.’
“It is now vital that a timeframe for a review is quickly put in place, so any negative impacts on animal welfare or the sustainability of veterinary services can be dealt with swiftly.”
Council voted by a majority of 20 to 3 in favour of the changes, which it then decided should come into force between 1st June and 23rd December 2023, subject to a review at the next meeting.
Discuss the propose changes here
The Disciplinary Committee heard that Mr Samuel had been convicted of five animal welfare offences at Leeds Magistrates' Court in January 2016. The charges related to causing unnecessary suffering to a number of animals including twelve dogs and four cats, and failing to take steps to ensure that the needs of the animals for which he was responsible were met. The animals were kept at the Armley Veterinary Practice, for which Mr Samuel was, at the time, practice principal.
Mr Samuel was sentenced to 12 weeks' imprisonment suspended for 12 months on the condition he completed 150 hours' unpaid work and paid a fine of £100. He was also ordered to pay costs of £500 and a victim surcharge of £80. He was also made subject to a disqualification order for three years.
Dr Samuel subsequently appealed against his conviction in April 2018. His appeal was dismissed in respect of five of the charges but was upheld in respect of one charge, which, as a result, did not form part of the College’s case.
Dr Samuel declined to attend the hearing in person and was not represented before the Disciplinary Committee. In considering the facts of the charges against Dr Samuel the Committee found them proven.
The Committee then went on to consider whether the proven charges, both individually and cumulatively, rendered Dr Samuel unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
The College’s case was that the convictions concerned animal welfare and therefore went to the heart of his practice as a vet, that Dr Samuel behaved in a manner incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon, that he failed in his core responsibility as a veterinary surgeon to protect and act in the best interests of animal welfare, and that he maintained he had no responsibility for the animals on his practice premises – an assertion referred to as ‘an extraordinary position for a veterinary surgeon to take’.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "ust as the judgment of the Crown Court and the Magistrates Court had found, the Committee also found that Dr Samuel must have known that the animals were in distress and were in a neglected state. The Committee was sure that Dr Samuel must have been aware of the animals notwithstanding his continued denial. The Committee concluded that Dr Samuel was unfit to practise because of the facts underlying the convictions. Dr Samuel had an overriding duty of care for the animals and to take action in relation to their health and welfare because they were living under the roof of his veterinary practice."
In considering its sanction against Dr Samuel, the Committee concluded that removal from the Register was the most appropriate option. It took into account the fact that the animals were found starving in a cellar without water, that Dr Samuel had not demonstrated insight into the serious nature of his offences, that he continued to deny responsibility and, furthermore, found no evidence that he no longer posed a risk to animals in the future.
Ian Green added: "The Committee decided that the behaviour found proved was fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon because in this case there had been a serious departure from standards as set out in the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons…. Furthermore, there had been serious harm caused to a number of animals and a risk of harm to a number of other animals."
Dr Samuel has 28 days from being informed of the Disciplinary Committee’s decision in which to make an appeal to the Privy Council.
The Committee’s full decision and findings can be found here
The two candidates were VN Council Vice-Chair Liz Cox and newcomer Jane Davidson.
Both Liz and Jane will start their three-year terms on VN Council at Royal College Day on Friday 12 July 2019.
Racheal Marshall, Chair of VN Council, said: "First, I would welcome our new VN Council member Jane Davidson who is well-known to many in the profession as @JaneRVN, a prolific tweeter on all things #planetrvn and a powerful advocate for the veterinary nursing profession through her work with the media, including her regular Vet Times blog. I also wish to congratulate Liz who I am sure will continue to be a great asset to VN Council for a further three years.
"However, it is disappointing that there were not enough candidates standing for us to hold an election this year and give the profession the opportunity to exercise their democratic right and decide who they wish to elect. We will be taking stock of the situation over the next few months and considering how we can do more to promote the activities and decisions of VN Council and its members in the hope that, next year, we will see an increase in the numbers standing as candidates."
The Committee had found Dr Elefterescu guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to a number of charges which covered issues such as dishonesty, poor record-keeping, and failure to carry out adequate clinical examinations.
The full charges and findings of the RCVS Disciplinary Committee can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held the appeal hearing in October last year with three Justices of the Supreme Court - Lord Kerr, Lord Carnwath and Lord Kitchin – comprising the Board.
The basis of the appeal to the Privy Council was that the Committee’s findings on the facts of the case were flawed, with his counsel saying that Dr Elefterescu 'strenuously disputes the findings by the Committee of his dishonesty and lack of professional competence and submits that there is no adequate basis for them in the evidence’.
His counsel also told the Board that the Disciplinary Committee’s sanction failed to take into account mitigating factors and that the decision to remove Dr Elefterescu from the Register was disproportionate.
In relation to the appeal against the Disciplinary Committee’s findings on the facts, the Board was not persuaded by any of the arguments put forward on behalf of Dr Elefterescu. These arguments included that the RCVS had failed to call relevant witnesses and had failed to make Dr Elefterescu aware of the significance of some evidential matters, disclosed to him.
In respect of the sanction, the Board was also unpersuaded by the arguments put forward by Dr Elefterescu’s counsel, namely that it was too harsh in its assessment of aggravating factors, did not give adequate weight to mitigating factors, and that it failed to distinguish lack of competence from misconduct.
In its judgment on the arguments put forward by Dr Elefterescu’s counsel, the Board said: "It is the opinion of the Board that these criticisms are not well founded. The Committee considered with care Dr Elefterescu’s proven and admitted conduct in relation to each of the charges and whether it fell below or far below the standard to be expected. It is to be noted in this regard that a number of the charges which were either admitted or upheld were not the subject of any challenge on this appeal.
"Overall, the Committee found that Dr Elefterescu’s clinical failures were very serious, involved failures in the basics of animal care, resulted in animal suffering and involved widespread breaches of the respondent’s [RCVS] code of professional conduct. It also expressed particular concern about its findings of dishonesty, and rightly so. That conduct was, in its view, ‘at the top end’ of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. What is more, Dr Elefterescu had a lack of insight into his failings and a wholly unjustified confidence in his abilities which constituted an ongoing risk to animal welfare."
"These were findings which the Committee was clearly entitled to make and, in the light of them, the Board is firmly of the view that the decision of the Committee to direct the removal of Dr Elefterescu’s name from the Register cannot be impeached. The Board rejects the criticisms made of the Committee’s reasoning and the conclusions to which it came. The direction that Dr Elefterescu’s name must be removed from the Register was appropriate and proportionate."
The Judicial Committee’s full findings can be found at www.jcpc.uk/cases/docs/jcpc-2018-0060-judgment.pdf.
The course offers practical tips and is also designed to help veterinary professionals understand their obligations under the Code of Professional Conduct when discussing costs with clients.
RCVS CEO Lizzie Lockett said: “Discussions around the costs of veterinary treatment are not always easy and can sometimes give rise to misunderstandings or lack of clarity between clients and veterinary teams.
"We recognise the challenges these conversations present and the pressures veterinary professionals face.
“Meanwhile, the ongoing Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) investigation has highlighted that animal owners are not always satisfied with the level of information they receive in order to make an informed choice about treatment options.
This course supports the development of veterinary surgeons’ and veterinary nurses’ communication skills so that they can discuss treatment costs more transparently with their clients, helping to reduce potential misunderstandings and build trust.”
The course takes 45 minutes to complete and features an interactive scenario as well as expert video advice from experienced veterinary surgeons.
https://academy.rcvs.org.uk
Kellie Price, a Kent-based Registered Veterinary Nurse has been suspended from the Register for nine months by the RCVS RVN Disciplinary Committee after she admitted dishonestly creating four prescriptions, one of which was then fraudulently presented to a pharmacy.
The Committee heard that in January 2013, Miss Price, who did not attend the hearing and had no representation, had dishonestly created a prescription for two inhalers while working at a veterinary practice in Kent.
This prescription had been written and signed in the name of a locum veterinary surgeon, Cristiana Tudini MRCVS, without her knowledge or consent. The false prescription was subsequently presented to a pharmacy for dispensing.
In addition, in March 2013, Miss Price dishonestly created a further three prescriptions - one of which was written in the name of her colleague Cormac Higgins MRCVS, and two written in the name of Cristiana Tudini MRCVS without either's knowledge or consent. All four false prescriptions had been made out for Miss Price's Jack Russell terrier.
Upon discovering the false prescriptions, Mr Higgins asked Miss Price for an explanation and subsequently suspended her from her position pending further investigation. However, after being interviewed by Mr Higgins, she resigned before any in-house disciplinary hearing could take place. The allegations were then reported to both the RCVS and the police, the latter giving Miss Price a formal caution in respect of the false prescription made in January 2013.
In considering Miss Price's sanction, the RVN Disciplinary Committee took into account a number of aggravating and mitigating factors. In mitigation, it accepted Miss Price's explanation that, in the early hours of 6 January, she had suffered an asthma attack and that she had created the false prescription at work in a panic after realising her inhaler was empty and fearing a further asthma attack. The Committee also took into account a witness statement from Cormac Higgins MRCVS which described her as a "great nurse" and "good with patients and clients".
However, the Committee also considered aggravating factors including Miss Price's dishonesty and the fact that she then made further false prescriptions in March, although these were not then presented to a pharmacy.
Professor Noreen Burrows, who chaired the RVN Disciplinary Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: "The Committee is... satisfied that the admitted dishonesty amounts to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect [and] is satisfied that the respondent's conduct fell far short of the conduct to be expected of a registered veterinary nurse."
On deciding the sanction she added: "Taking into account all of the circumstances, the Committee has concluded that the suspension of the Respondent's name from the Register for a period of nine months is the proportionate sanction in this case."
The Committee's full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
The survey asks EU nationals about their experience of practising in the UK since the referendum and will seek to find out what their career expectations and aspirations are now.
The survey will also ask how they feel that the RCVS has supported EU vet nurses to practise in the UK since the transition period ended on 31 December 2020.
The survey is being conducted by the Institute for Employment Studies (IES), an independent, not-for-profit research institute.
Respondents are encouraged to be as open as possible, as individual responses will not be seen by the RCVS and all survey data will be analysed independently by IES.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO said: “We are hearing anecdotal feedback from EU veterinary professionals about the impact of the EU Exit on their working lives, but it is important for us to have direct feedback as evidence for our recommendations.
"I would encourage everyone who receives the survey to share their thoughts with us, as the feedback we receive from this and the previous surveys, will help us to plan what training, resources and support the professions need from us post-EU Exit."
Everyone eligible to take part in the survey is being sent an email today from Dilys Robinson at the IES, with a link to the survey.
You have until Tuesday 16th November 2021 to complete it.
If you have any questions, contact Sara.Butcher@employment-studies.co.uk.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton was removed from the Register after his Kent practice was found to have unhygienic and unsterile conditions as well as poor record keeping, although he has always disputed this, maintaining that he was not actually practising at the time of the inspection.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton made an application for restoration on the basis that he did not want to be restored to the Register in order to practise veterinary surgery, but so that he could more easily achieve recognition from academics and drug companies for his work on herbal and natural remedies.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton's dispute over the original findings of the 1994 case was ruled inadmissible.
In considering his application, the Committee took into account the fact that he had not accepted the original findings from 1994 nor had he, over the course of his various applications for restoration, shown any insight into his original conduct or the serious concerns about his fitness to practice raised in previous restoration hearings.
It also considered that Mr Seymour-Hamilton had been off the Register for 29 years and would need to have demonstrated prolonged, intensive and formal training to ensure he met the Day One Competences required of a veterinary surgeon.
The College submitted that he had made no such attempts and so would pose a significant risk to animal health and welfare if he were allowed to practice again.
The Committee also considered that Mr Seymour-Hamilton had indicated that he had practised veterinary surgery while off the Register – including conducting two spay procedures in Calais, France – and had used his own animals to try out new and untested ‘herbal remedies’.
The College submitted that this indicated someone who didn’t have due regard to the importance of the current level of skills, experience and qualifications required in order to undertake veterinary surgery competently, and therefore posed a risk to animal health and welfare.
Dr Kathryn Peaty MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The College invited the Committee to consider that where, as here, some 29 years have passed since this veterinary surgeon has practised, there has been no intensive, and prolonged re-training, no acceptance of the original findings and no insight into concerns about his fitness to practise, there will inevitably be a serious risk to the welfare of animals and the wider public interest if the applicant is restored to the Register.
The Committee agrees, and considers that the applicant has not shown the required insight as to the steps he needs to take to return to safe veterinary practice.”
Accordingly, the Committee decided that it would not be in the public interest to restore Mr Seymour-Hamilton to the Register.
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Kate’s election means that, come July and subject to ratification by RCVS Council, the offices of RCVS President, Senior Vice-President and Junior Vice-President will all be held by women for the first time in the College’s 177-year history.
A graduate of Edinburgh’s Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, Kate was a farm vet for 15 years, a partner in a 15 vet practice in Aberdeen. She then moved to the pharmaceutical industry as a veterinary advisor before joining the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra). From there, she moved into non-veterinary Senior Civil Service (SCS) roles in several Whitehall departments including the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Justice. As a senior civil servant she was Principal Private Secretary to three Secretaries of State for Scotland, handling a diverse policy portfolio and working across Whitehall, including No.10 Downing Street and the Devolved Administrations.
First elected to RCVS Council in 2015 for a four year term and again in 2020, Kate has previously served as Chair of the RCVS Standards Committee and RCVS representative on the UK co-ordination group for the Federation of Vets of Europe (FVE). Currently Vice Chair of the Education Committee, member of the Registration Committee and the Environment & Sustainability Working Party, Kate is an appointed veterinary member of Veterinary Nurses’ Council.
Kate is a qualified Official Veterinarian (OV), a Non-Executive Director on the Moredun Foundation and Scottish Agriculture College (SAC) Commercial Boards, a veterinary advisor on a Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC) mental health project and on the Council of the Association of Government Veterinarians. She’s a member of the British Veterinary Association (BVA) and the Veterinary Public Health Association. A Council member of the British Cattle Veterinary Association (2004-10), Kate served as a Trustee of the BVA Animal Welfare Foundation (2014-17).
Current RCVS President Dr Mandisa Greene will become Senior Vice-President, and joining Kate and Mandisa on the Officer team will be Dr Melissa Donald, who last month was elected Junior Vice-President for 2021-22. Current Senior Vice-President Dr Niall Connell was recently elected RCVS Treasurer.
The vacancy in the RCVS Officer team arose following Professor David Argyle’s decision to resign from Council in March, meaning that Council needed to hold two votes in quick succession: one at its scheduled meeting in March for the 2021-22 JVP position; and one today for the current JVP vacancy.
Kate said: “I am delighted to be elected JVP. It’s been an exceptionally challenging year for those in all walks of veterinary life, including students aspiring to join our profession. It will be an honour to lead the RCVS as its tenth female president, working with veterinary colleagues as well as reaching out to allied professionals acknowledging that there will be challenges to navigate as well as triumphs to celebrate.”
The RCVS and the BVNA have launched VN Futures, a companion project to Vet Futures, which aims to draw up a blueprint for the future of the veterinary nursing profession.
One of the recommendations of the Vet Futures report (Taking charge of our future: a vision for the veterinary profession for 2030), which was published in November 2015, was to “encourage veterinary nurse leaders to develop a report and recommendations which are directly relevant to veterinary nurses and their future...”.
Following a joint meeting between the RCVS VN Council and the Council of the BVNA in October 2015, it was decided that a ‘VN Futures’ project would provide the relevant leadership and engagement to achieve this.
An initial meeting with a broad range of stakeholders took place at the RCVS on 7 January 2016, and, following this, a VN Futures Action Group has now been established to take the project forward, with the aim of delivering an action plan at the Vet Futures Summit in the summer.
The Action Group includes a mix of individuals involved in the training, representation, regulation, employment and management of veterinary nurses. The biographies of the team are available at www.vetfutures.org.uk/vnfutures.
The timeframe under consideration for Vet Futures is until 2030, however, it was considered that a five-year timeline may be more appropriate for veterinary nursing, given that it’s a younger profession, the retention rate is lower, and the training cycle is shorter.
The VN Futures project is running a series of evening meetings to engage with VNs and those involved in the profession, as follows:
The meetings are free to attend and will start at 6.30pm, with a buffet supper. For more information and to register, please visit: www.vnfutures.eventbrite.com
Liz Cox, Chair of the RCVS VN Council, said: “The VN Futures project aims to deliver an action plan that will help take the veterinary nursing profession into its next phase of development. With the new Charter now in place, and a willingness from Defra to review Schedule 3, the time is ripe for us to take control of what happens next.
“The key to VN Futures’ success will be collaboration – I am delighted that we are working with the BVNA on this, together with other representative bodies – and also engagement: we want to hear VNs’ aspirations for their profession to ensure our action plan is as relevant and far-reaching as possible. I look forward to seeing a good turn-out for our roadshow events.”
Sam Morgan, BVNA President, said: “BVNA is delighted to be working alongside RCVS VN Council on this project. We fully believe in the importance of the veterinary nurse within practice and think this project can help shape the future of the profession. Being involved in the Vet Futures project, via BVA, was an eye-opener, and that only just touched on our own profession; we now have the chance to look at veterinary nursing specifically, and it is an opportunity not to be missed. Knowing where we want to take the profession will make it so much easier to reach the goal.”
At the roundtable, Liz Barton MRCVS, Head of Communications at Vet.CT, spoke about the application of AI in clinical practice, including in preventative medicine, diagnostics, treatment and prognostics.
Liz highlighted how the use of AI tools in clinical practice for tasks such as pattern recognition had led to many unforeseen and unexpected benefits, for example by picking up things that humans may not.
Dr P-J Noble, Senior Lecturer in Small Animal Science at the University of Liverpool, explained how AI tools had proven useful in processing, assessing and annotating qualitative data gathered through the university's Small Animal Veterinary Surveillance Network (SAVSNET) once they were programmed to recognise certain patterns, saving lots of research time and costs.
Dr Chris Trace MRCVS, Head of Digital Learning at the University of Surrey, spoke about AI use in higher education and how it has already started to be used beneficially both as a teaching and learning aid, as well as for assessment and feedback.
In the afternoon session, groups of delegates were asked to discuss practical questions over AI use in the veterinary professions and how it might be regulated.
There were discussions on how to help vet and VN students make the most of AI in learning and assessment, responsible use of AI in clinical settings, the risks of not using AI, how veterinary professionals can work with animal owners and keepers to ensure the safe and productive use of AI, and whether AI-led devices should be regulated.
Lizzie said: “This was a really positive and exciting event that involved a heady mix of trepidation over the risks and implications of AI now and into the future, and optimism over the beneficial impact it could have for education, diagnosis, treatment and patient outcomes.
"The discussions have certainly given us at the College a lot of food for thought on how we can put in place guardrails and guidelines on the appropriate use of AI in the veterinary sector.
“This is an area of technology that is evolving so rapidly that it would not be effective for us to put in place specific guidance for the use of AI tools, but instead we will be looking at how we can regulate the use of AI in the round and ensure our principles are sufficiently future-proofed to keep up with the pace of change.
“Any regulation will start with first principles, such as transparency and honesty around the use of AI in veterinary practice, the minimisation of potential risks, and the continuing importance of professional accountability for decision-making, even where such decisions may have been heavily influenced by the use of AI tools and AI-generated data.”
The input gathered from the roundtable will now be considered by a range of RCVS committees over the coming months.
A full report of the event will be published this summer.
1,927 veterinary nurses voted, representing an 8.8% turnout.
Whilst marginally better than 2022's turnout of 8.4%, it's still less than half that seen in 2020.
Matthew Rendle scored 891 votes and Simon Williams 642.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for both elections, said: “Congratulations to all our successful candidates in this year’s elections and thank you to all those who stood for election this year.
"We look forward to welcoming our successful candidates to their elected places at this year’s AGM.
“While the turnout for the VN Council election improved slightly on last year, it was a shame to see the turnout for vets fall again.
"As part of our wider Council culture project, we are looking at how to increase engagement with our election processes across the board, from candidate nominations, to how we present information about the candidates, to how we encourage greater election turnout.
"We will be consulting with the group set up to look specifically at this issue in due course to see how we can improve turnout going forward.”
The full results for the RCVS Council election can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/vnvote23
The course has been made available after its authors, Dr Katherine Wakelin and Sarah Corthorne from the University of Surrey, received a Mind Matters Grant to conduct research which found it improved the mental wellbeing of veterinary professionals.
Katherine and Sarah will also be hosting a webinar from 7pm – 8pm on Tuesday 3rd September to discuss the importance of self-compassion, provide an overview of their research, as well as information on the course itself.
Katherine said: “Our recent randomised control trial has shown the course to significantly improve resilience and self-compassion and reduce rumination and self-criticism amongst veterinarians.
"Therefore, Sarah and I are delighted to now be disseminating the CFT course freely to the veterinary profession, so that as many people as possible are able to benefit from the evidence-based resource.
“Even though our research was conducted on veterinary surgeons, we hope that the course will be useful to all those working in the veterinary team as the content can be applied in a number of contexts.
“Our webinar will explain more about our research, as well as some of the science behind the effectiveness of the course in a veterinary context.
"So, if you are interested in learning more about how CFT may be able to help you and your team, both in a personal and professional capacity, please do come along.”
In order to access the online compassion course, individuals are invited to complete a short questionnaire before and after watching one video (10-15 minutes long) each day for 14 days. The aim of the video intervention is to develop self-compassion skills and reduce self-criticism. This will also allow Katherine and Sarah to evaluate the ongoing impact that the videos are having on those working in the sector.
https://vetmindmatters.org/resources/free-online-compassion-course-for-veterinarian-mental-wellbeing/
Gordon Hockey has been appointed Acting Registrar at the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
He succeeds Jane Hern, who had been Registrar for 15 years before deciding to move on to pursue other interests.
Gordon, who is a qualified pharmacist and barrister, has been at the College for the last 13 years as Head of the Professional Conduct Department and Assistant Registrar.
Meanwhile, the College says it is giving consideration to the future scope of the Registrar and Secretary's roles, as the Officer team begins the recruitment process.
Eleanor Ferguson has taken over as Acting Head of the Professional Conduct Department.
The College says that the number of veterinary nurses removed at the beginning of this year is significantly down from 2016 when 692 VNs were removed for non-payment.
Throughout the course of last year’s renewal period emails and texts were sent to members of the profession reminding them that the fee was due for payment on or before 31 December. Letters were also sent to those for whom the College holds neither an email address nor mobile telephone number.
The College has now published a list with the names of all those veterinary nurses who have been removed from the Register and who have not, as of Friday 13 January, been restored.
It is recommended that practices check the list (available to download from www.rcvs.org.uk/registration/about-the-vn-register/) to ensure that any veterinary nurses they employ are on the Register and are therefore able to carry out medical treatment and minor acts of veterinary surgery as defined under Schedule 3 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act.
Those who have been removed from the Register of Veterinary Nurses and who wish to apply to be restored can do so by contacting the RCVS Registration Department on 020 7202 0707 or registration@rcvs.org.uk.
With regard to all types of complementary and alternative medicine, the statement says that the College expects MsRCVS to offer treatments that "are underpinned by a recognised evidence base or sound scientific principles."
The new position statement states very clearly that homeopathy falls below this benchmark: "Homeopathy exists without a recognised body of evidence for its use. Furthermore, it is not based on sound scientific principles."
The full statement reads:
RCVS President Professor Stephen May said: "It is fair to say that debates on either side of this issue have been passionate and this too has been reflected in the debates that we have had amongst Council members as to how to best articulate the College’s position on complementary and alternative medicines.
"What we have is a statement that reinforces the evidence-based and sound scientific foundations of our profession and our commitment to put animal health and welfare at the forefront of all we do.
"I am very pleased that the overwhelming majority of Council members agreed with this statement and that the College has a firm and clear position on this important topic."
The CertAVN was launched in May 2019 as a modular, advanced professional qualification allowing veterinary nurses at all stages of their careers to develop their professional skills and knowledge.
The CertAVN framework sets out the professional values, skills and behaviours required of the higher education institutions responsible for providing the training and support for CertAVN students.
There are currently five accredited course providers in the UK:
The proposed standards for accreditation are set under three areas: curricula and assessment, educators and assessors, and learning culture.
Julie Dugmore, RCVS Director of Veterinary Nursing, said: “In order to make sure that the CertAVN remains up to date and fit for purpose, it is important that we consult on the accreditation standards at regular intervals.
"We welcome constructive and specific feedback from veterinary nurses at all stages of their careers – whether you have already undertaken the CertAVN or are perhaps considering doing so in the future – as well as the wider veterinary team, educators, and employers of current and potential CertAVN holders.
“Your insights will help us ensure that the standards continue to enable veterinary nurse educators to deliver the best training and support possible for CertAVN students."
The consultation runs until 5pm on Monday 3 March 2025.
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/our-consultations/review-of-the-certavn-framework
The RCVS List of Veterinary Nurses Incorporating the Register of Veterinary Nurses 2008 is now available. This is the first time that the publication distinguishes between Listed and Registered Veterinary Nurses, following the introduction of the non-statutory Register in September 2007.
The publication includes 4,808 Registered Veterinary Nurses (RVNs), although the figure continues to rise and is currently around the 5,000 mark. The data used in the List/Register is correct as of 10 March 2008. It is possible to check the most up-to-date information on RCVSonline: www.rcvs.org.uk/vnlist
RVNs indicate a willingness to be accountable for their professional practice, by following the Guide to Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses, and keeping their skills up-to-date through Continuing Professional Development.
Only Registered Veterinary Nurses are able to use the letters RVN after their name. Veterinary Nurses who have not yet registered and would like to, should contact the RCVS Veterinary Nursing Department for a transfer pack: 020 7202 0788 and vetnursing@rcvs.org.uk. Transfer is free of charge.
"I look forward to seeing the RVN section of the publication increasing in size year on year, as veterinary nurses signal to the public and their colleagues that they wish to be recognised as accountable professionals," commented Andrea Jeffery, Chairman of the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council.
The publication has been posted to all Listed and Registered Veterinary Nurses and Veterinary Nursing Approved Centres. It is also available to purchase from RCVSonline (www.rcvs.org.uk/publications).
The first change has been made to paragraph 1.6 which now advises general practitioners to check whether the vet they are referring a case to is on the RCVS Specialist or Advanced Practitioner list, explaining the difference to the client and what sets them apart from other vets who might be prepared to accept a referral.
Also, practitioners who accept a referral should provide information to the referrer about the experience and status of those likely to be responsible for the case.
The guidance about conflicts of interest in paragraph 1.7 has also been amended such that referring surgeons should tell clients if they are referring their case to a practice owned by the same group.
There is new guidance about how vets and nurses talk about referral practitioners, with the new advice being to focus on accepted terms such as 'RCVS Specialist' and 'RCVS Advanced Practitioner', and avoid more general terms like 'referral surgeon' or 'consultant' to avoid confusion or implying that individuals hold more qualifications than they do.
Lastly, there is new guidance that vets may only use the name 'Specialist' in the name of their practice where there is genuine and meaningful involvement, and oversight, in case management by at least one RCVS specialist in all disciplines where any clinical services are offered under this business name.
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/advice-and-guidance/code-of-professional-conduct-for-veterinary-surgeons/supporting-guidance/referrals-and-second-opinions/
The two 60-minute interactive sessions are taking place on Wednesday (21st April) at 12.30pm and 6pm, coinciding with the United Nation’s World Creativity and Innovation Day.
Each session will introduce a range of creative techniques that can be used to spur innovation. Different breakout groups will then have various problems to solve and will utilise these techniques to tackle challenges and issues encountered within everyday veterinary practice.
Sophie Rogers, RCVS ViVet Manager, said: "These creativity techniques are a framework for approaching problems, but the key to developing solutions to everyday tasks and problems is learning how to foster and harness the whole team's creative abilities. These workshops will provide the techniques to help you and your team overcome the common barriers to creativity and gain the tools and mindsets needed to break existing patterns and ways of doing things, generate new ideas, and improve creative self-leadership.”
The workshops will be hosted by Gill Stevens (pictured right), the Founding Director of Level Seven, a consultancy that specialises in merging coaching with design thinking methodology as a way to support innovation and team productivity, and Rick Harris, Founder of Customer Faithful, a research-led consultancy, specialising in customer research, proposition design and employee engagement.
Veterinary professionals can sign up to the sessions, which count towards their continuing professional development (CPD) requirement, via the ViVet website at: www.vivet.org.uk/interactive-workshop-on-creative-thinking/
The ceremonies, which took place on Tuesday, saw newly-qualified veterinary nurses being formally welcomed to the profession and taken through their professional declarations by Racheal Marshall, Chair of the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council.
Six veterinary nurses who had achieved the Diploma in Advanced Veterinary Nursing (DipAVN) also had their achievement marked on the day.
Racheal said: "It is very apt that this ceremony is taking place during BVNA’s VN Awareness Month, where veterinary practices are encouraged to talk to their clients and the wider public about who veterinary nurses are, what they do and why, as a caring profession, they are so important to animal health and welfare."
"With VNs like you joining our profession or continuing to excel in your careers and helping to raise awareness of veterinary nursing amongst the general public, I am positive that we will continue to progress."
Racheal also gave three pieces of advice to the new registrants: accept that there will be change in your career and life, look after your own physical and mental wellbeing, and use your voice as a veterinary nurse by voicing your opinions and ideas, voting in VN Council elections – or even standing as a member – and contributing to the VN Futures project.
One particularly special element of the day was the recognition of Surrey-based veterinary nurse Sandra Robson for her long service with a veterinary nursing career spanning over 40 years. Sandra, who now works part-time at Brelades Vets in Dorking, began her training in 1968 and qualified as a Registered Animal Nursing Assistant (or RANA) in August 1970. She has worked as a head nurse and practice manager at equine and small animal practices and has also been keen to pass on her experience to her peers being active in teaching and training many student veterinary nurses over the years.
Sandra said: "The people here should be proud of their profession because they have taken a long time to achieve their qualifications and they should be making everyone aware that it is an important achievement. There has been many general developments over the years with the introduction of the Register, the importance on veterinary nurses being professionally responsible for their own actions and Schedule 3."
Also attending the day was RCVS President Amanda Boag who presented each of the new veterinary nurses with a scroll containing the professional declaration made by all veterinary nurses on admission to the Register of Veterinary Nurses and formally welcoming them to the VN profession as an associate of the RCVS.
Amanda said: "As a veterinary surgeon, I am incredibly proud to work alongside your profession. I have been very lucky within my career to work with some amazing nurses, and I have learnt so much from being part of the wider veterinary team.
"As a young vet working in busy emergency clinics, it was very often the fantastic nurses I worked with who saved the day and were responsible for helping me save patients’ lives. I couldn’t have done it without them.
"Being a vet nurse is a wonderful vocation with great and increasing career opportunities and you are such an important part of the veterinary team."
The next VN Day ceremony takes place on Thursday 17 October 2019.
The Disciplinary Committee took the unusual step of granting an application by the respondent for anonymity, after seeing evidence of a real and immediate threat to the individual’s security if their details were made public.
For the purposes of the hearing, the respondent was therefore referred to as 'X'.
The Committee heard that the individual pleaded guilty in court in 2020 to intentionally and knowingly attempting to communicate with a person under 16 years for the purposes of sexual gratification.
Following this they were sentenced to a two-year probation order, were ordered to register on the Sexual Offences Register for five years; and were made subject to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order for five years.
At the outset of the hearing the individual admitted to all the charges against them and the Committee also noted that there was a certified copy of the conviction available.
The Committee then considered whether the conviction amounted to serious professional misconduct. In considering this, it set out the aggravating factors surrounding the case, these being that there was the risk of actual harm to a minor, that the misconduct was premeditated as the respondent had sent a number of messages via a number of online platforms over several days, that the individual displayed predatory behaviour including sending pictures and making comments of a sexual nature, and that it involved what the respondent believed to be a vulnerable individual, namely a 15-year-old child.
In mitigation, the Committee considered that there had been no actual harm caused to a human or animal in light of the fact that the 15-year-old child, who the respondent believed they were communicating with, was not real. It also took into account that the conduct related to a single isolated incident and that the individual had made open and frank admissions at an early stage.
Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was satisfied that the sentence imposed on X, which included X being subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order until 2025, resulted in the profession of veterinary nurses being brought into disrepute and, in the Committee’s judgement, public confidence in the profession would be undermined if the Committee did not find that the conviction rendered X unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse.”
In considering the individual’s sanction, the Committee heard from a character witness who said that the respondent’s actions were out of character, that they had a previously long and unblemished career, that they had made full admissions and demonstrated insight, and that they had a low risk of reoffending in the future.
Cerys said: “The Committee accepted that X had been an excellent veterinary nurse and that X’s criminal conduct did not relate to X’s practice as a veterinary nurse. However, in the Committee’s judgement, the aggravating factors outweighed the considerable mitigating factors in this case.”
She added: “The Committee decided that a suspension order was not the appropriate sanction for such a serious offence because it did not reflect the gravity of X’s conduct. In the Committee’s judgement, the wider public interest, that is the maintenance of the reputation of the profession and the College as a regulator, required a sanction of removal from the Register. The Committee considered that X had much mitigation and was clearly a dedicated veterinary nurse but the reputation of the profession was more important than the interests of X.
“Further, the Committee noted that in circumstances where X’s probation order expired in 2022, and where the ancillary orders, a Sexual Harm Prevention Order and a requirement to register on the Sexual Offences Register did not expire until 2025; the only proportionate sanction was to direct the Registrar to remove X’s name from the Register of Veterinary Nurses.”
The full findings for the case can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary