View all veterinary jobs
Four veterinary nurses are contesting two places in this year’s VN Council elections. Two of these are existing VN Council members eligible for re-election while two candidates are not currently on VN Council. They are:
Ballot papers and candidates’ details are due to be posted to all veterinary nurses eligible to vote during the week commencing 13 March, and all votes must be cast, either online or by post, by 5pm on Friday 28 April 2017.
Once again the College is inviting members of the profession to 'Quiz the candidates' by putting their questions directly to all those standing for election. Each candidate will then be invited to choose two questions to answer from all those received, and produce a video recording of their answers. Recordings will be published on the RCVS website on Thursday 16 March.
The biographies and statements for each candidate in the elections can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/vnvote17.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: "This year we will be publishing the candidate biographies and statements online ahead of the start of the official voting period. This is to allow both veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses to be better informed about the candidates and their reasons for standing before they put their questions forward.
"We would strongly encourage all members of the professions to review the candidate profiles and pose questions for them to answer. We hope it will spark some interesting debates about how the profession is regulated."
Nurses should email their question (NB only one per person) to VNvote17@rcvs.org.uk, post it on the College’s Facebook page (www.facebook.com/thercvs) or on Twitter using the hashtag #VNvote17 by midday on Monday 27 February.
The RCVS Trust has announced 34 grants totalling approximately £165,000, being made to veterinary surgeons, universities and higher education (HE) establishments, to fund high-quality research projects in the UK and overseas, and support veterinary education.
Harper Adams University College and Myerscough College will be the first veterinary nursing colleges to receive funding under the Spencer-Hill equipment grants programme; this was the first time that RCVS-approved HE veterinary nurse training providers were able to apply for this funding. Harper Adams will receive £2,350 to purchase a Humphrey ADE-circle system, and Myerscough, £1,395 for an 'Emily' canine positioning mannequin.
Severine Tasker MRCVS, from the University of Bristol, and Janet Patterson-Kane MRCVS, from the University of Glasgow each received Blue Sky Awards of £17,000. Severine will conduct research into constructing defined feline coronavirus strains for determination of the role of virus genetics in the development of feline infectious peritonitis. Janet Patterson-Kane's research will investigate whether a new therapy for treating wounds in humans can be translated for use in horses.
Janet said: "Limb wounds in horses are very common and are notorious for developing masses of exuberant scar tissue - proud flesh - and not healing properly. This can necessitate multiple operations. The findings of current research at University College London by our collaborator, Professor David Becker, suggest that in human patients a protein, connexin 43, is not downregulated at the edges of wounds that are difficult to heal. Use of therapy to reduce connexin 43 expression in human skin wounds in which healing has stalled has been remarkably successful in achieving wound closure. The aim of our research is to determine if connexin 43 plays a similar key role as a 'master switch' for wound healing in horses. I am extremely grateful to the RCVS Trust for their support."
Six veterinary undergraduates will also receive EMS vacation research scholarships of £700 each, which can be used to fund expenses relating to a research project undertaken in the UK or overseas as part of a UK veterinary school's extra-mural studies requirement.
Full details of the RCVS Trust grant awards may be found at www.rcvstrust.org.uk/awards
Only two nominations have been received for the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council and there were two places up for contest, so there will be no VN Council election this year.
The two places will be filled by Hilary Orpet and Suzanne May. Hilary is a Lecturer in Veterinary Nursing at the Royal Veterinary College, and will start her second four-year term on Council. Suzanne is Head of the Veterinary Nursing Approved Centre and Senior Lecturer at Harper Adams University College.
The pair will take up their positions formally on RCVS Day in July.
Liz Branscombe, Chairman of the VN Council said: "Although I am delighted that Hilary remains on Council, and look forward to welcoming Suzanne, I am disappointed that so few VNs took the opportunity to stand for election. For VN Council to remain relevant to all VNs, it is important that as many VNs as possible engage with the political process".
The Veterinary Nurses Council of the RCVS is seeking nominations from veterinary surgeons and VNs for its Golden Jubilee award by 8 May 2012.
The award recognises an exceptional contribution made to the veterinary nursing profession and/or a positive contribution to animal welfare. The Golden Jubilee award was inaugurated to mark the 50th anniversary of veterinary nurse training, in 2011, and the first award was presented to Jean Turner in 2011 for her lifetime contribution to veterinary nursing.
Liz Branscombe, Chairman of the VN Council said: "This is a prestigious award and a great opportunity to recognise someone who has made a positive impact on our profession.
"VN Council feels strongly that the award should be accessible to a wide spectrum of individuals, so nominees could come from veterinary nurses or veterinary surgeons involved in clinical practice, research, teaching or politics - in fact, any aspect of veterinary nursing."
Both veterinary surgeons and VNs are eligible to make nominations, or to be nominated for the Golden Jubilee award; nominations should be received by 8 May 2012. More information, together with the nomination form, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/jubileeaward.
The award will be presented at RCVS Day on 6 July 2012.
The roles were confirmed by Buckingham Palace this month as part of a recent review of royal patronages.
RCVS President Dr Sue Paterson FRCVS said: “We are delighted that His Majesty the King is our new Royal Patron, continuing his mother’s support for the veterinary professions.
“We know that His Majesty is a keen advocate for animal health and welfare, the environment and biodiversity, and so his interests align very much with ours in areas such as sustainability, tackling antimicrobial resistance, and in supporting veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses to best meet their professional standards.
British Veterinary Association President Dr. Anna Judson said: “We’re honoured to welcome His Majesty King Charles as our Patron.
"This ongoing royal commitment recognises the vital contribution vets make to animal welfare and their critical role in society, from taking care of the nation’s pets through to ensuring animal welfare in food production, public health and international trade.
"On behalf of our members, we’d like to thank His Majesty for his commitment to BVA, our profession and the work we do.”
There are 5 candidates standing for two available places on RCVS VN Council this year. They are:
The biographies and election statements for each candidate are available at https://www.rcvs.org.uk/who-we-are/vn-council/vn-council-elections/
Ahead of the start of the election in mid-March, the RCVS is asking veterinary nurses to email questions for candidates to: vnvote23@rcvs.org.uk in order to better understand them and their views.
You have until Friday 24 February 2023 to submit your question.
The voting period for RCVS VN Council opens on Monday 13th March and closes at 5pm on Friday 21 April 2023.
Mr Kashiv first appeared before the Committee in December 2016 in relation to four charges against him regarding his inadequate treatment of a Scottish Terrier called Tanzy which was ultimately euthanased due to renal failure.
The first charge related to Mr Kashiv’s original consultation with the owner in March 2015 and his failure to investigate for renal disease; his failure to discuss with the owner investigations to assess metastatic spread; failure to discuss with the owner alternative options to surgery such as palliative care or euthanasia and failure to explain to the owner key factors with regards to the surgery he had suggested to her, including its nature and extent, the risks involved, the fact another vet would be performing the surgery, and what to expect post-operatively.
The second charge related to the fact that, having admitted the dog as an in-patient at the practice, he failed to conduct further investigations regarding her poor condition; provide any or any adequate pain relief, or fail to record the same; failed to discuss with the owner the dog’s poor prognosis and failed to discuss with the owner the option of euthanasia.
The third charge related to the fact that Mr Kashiv discharged the animal back into her owner’s care when she was not in a fit state for discharge. The fourth and final charge related to the fact that Mr Kashiv failed to keep sufficient clear, detailed and accurate clinical records for his treatment of the dog.
At his original hearing in December 2016, the Committee found the four charges proven and also found that charges 1 to 3 amounted to serious professional misconduct. However, the Committee decided to postpone the judgement for two years, whilst recommending that Mr Kashiv agree to undertake a structured programme to improve his clinical practice, including putting together a personal development plan, having a mentor, accepting regular practice visits and undertaking additional continuing professional development (CPD).
The resumed hearing took place on Tuesday 18 December 2018, during which the Committee heard evidence from Dr Writer-Davies MRCVS (the veterinary surgeon appointed to review Mr Kashiv’s practice and report back to the Disciplinary Committee over the two year period), Mrs Somers MRCVS, (his appointed mentor), and Mr Kashiv himself.
Dr Writer-Davies told the Committee that she had no concerns about Mr Kashiv’s abilities regarding patient safety and that, in her view, he now meets the standards of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon. She cited the fact he had gained in confidence when communicating with clients, had undertaken a considerable amount of CPD focused on the areas of concern identified in the case, that she had observed more detailed record keeping from him and that a veterinary nurse had been appointed to assist in running Mr Kashiv’s practice.
The evidence from Mrs Somers also found that Mr Kashiv’s knowledge was in line with that expected of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon and that she had observed a good quality of care for pets and their owners from him.
Mr Kashiv also gave evidence, which the Committee said demonstrated considerable insight into his previous conduct and a good attitude towards self-reflective practice. The Committee also felt that the testimonials provided by Mr Kashiv showed him to be a kind and caring veterinary surgeon.
Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee considers that, having successfully completed the undertakings, Mr Kashiv is now a safe practitioner. The last two years has allowed Mr Kashiv to develop his skills particularly in the area of communication.
"However, the Committee has not lost sight of the fact that this was a serious case and that there was substantial harm caused to Tanzy.
"The Committee considers that in the intervening two years Mr Kashiv has gained considerable insight, developed better communication skills and remains open to improving his practice. It therefore imposes a reprimand on Mr Kashiv. The Committee considers that a reprimand is the appropriate and proportionate sanction to uphold proper professional standards and to maintain public confidence in the veterinary profession."
George Philippus Hauptfleisch faced three charges in relation to allegations of clinical failings surrounding three patients:
The first charge surrounded the allegations that in 2018, Mr Hauptfleisch failed to provide appropriate and adequate care to Steel, a Cane Corso Mastiff, in that he performed surgery outside of his competence, failed to offer a reasonable range of treatment options as alternatives, failed to make adequate enquiries about the possibility of a referral to a specialist, failed to obtain informed consent to the surgery, and failed to maintain adequate clinical records.
The second charge, in relation to a German Shepherd, alleged that in 2019, Mr Hauptfleisch failed to provide appropriate and adequate care when he undertook surgery which was outside of his competence and failed to undertake the surgery to an adequate standard, failed to note sufficient details to show that informed consent for the surgery had been obtained, and failed to maintain adequate clinical records.
The third charge, in relation to a Retriever, alleged that Mr Hauptfleisch failed to provide appropriate and adequate care with regards to surgery he performed when it was outside of his competence, failed to undertake the surgery to an adequate standard, failed to note sufficient details that showed informed consent had been obtained, and failed to maintain adequate clinical records.
Prior to the hearing, Mr Hauptfleisch made an application to the Committee to dispose of the matter by way of adjournment for an indefinite period, against his undertakings to request the Registrar to remove him from the Register, and never to seek restoration to the Register.
In deciding whether to grant the application, the Committee took into account a number of factors.
These included the fact that Mr Hauptfliesch had, in December 2021, returned to South Africa, after a career of over 32 years in the UK, and now resides there permanently, the fact that he has no intention of moving back to the UK, and that he had not practised as a veterinary surgeon since the day he left.
He had also removed himself from the equivalent register in South Africa and the Committee noted that the RCVS would inform the South African Veterinary Council of the outcome of these proceedings.
The Committee also noted that there were no previous disciplinary findings against him, that Mr Hauptfleisch now spends the majority of his time undertaking charitable activities, including running a mentoring programme for young people, and, that he expressed deep regret for anything which he did or did not do which failed to protect the welfare of animals or caused upset to his clients and fellow members of the profession.
Mr Hauptfleisch also drew attention to the fact that the charges did not allege dishonesty and that the reputation of the profession would be upheld as Mr Hauptfleisch would no longer practise as a veterinary surgeon and would not return to practise.
Therefore, it would not be proportionate, nor in the public interest, for there to be a lengthy contested hearing resulting in substantial costs for both the RCVS and for Mr Hauptfleisch.
Hilary Lloyd, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Taking into account the removal from the Register and the respondent’s undertaking never to apply for restoration, in conjunction with all of the circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that allowing the application would be sufficient to uphold the public interest, confidence in the profession and the RCVS as a regulator, and protect the welfare of animals.
“As a result of all the factors set out, and taking into account the nature of the charges which relate to the alleged inadequate standard of clinical practice, the Committee decided that this is not a case in which there were wider issues relevant to the profession at large, such as those which had public policy implications and which required full consideration at a hearing.
“The Committee was satisfied that neither the public interest nor the welfare of animals demands that there be a full hearing in this case.
“Taking into account proportionality and weighing in the balance all the circumstances of the case, the interests of justice, the public interest, the need to uphold proper standards of conduct and performance, and the need to protect the welfare of animals, the Committee decided to grant the respondent’s application.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/
The first charge related to his conviction on two counts of common assault by beating two individuals at an incident in December 2016, as a result of which he was made subject to a community order and a restraining order, as well as being fined and made to pay a victim surcharge and costs.
The second charge related to him undertaking, or attempting to undertake non-emergency surgery on the eyelid of one of the individuals referred to in the first charge, and administering, or attempting to administer, a Prescription-Only Veterinary Medicines to the same person.
The third charged related to an allegation that he had supplied the same individual with a Prescription-Only Medication other than in accordance with a valid prescription.
The second charge and third charges related to incidents which occurred some considerable time before the assault, not as a consequence of it.
At the outset of the hearing Mr Sutcliffe admitted the first and second charges against him and that these constituted serious professional misconduct. He denied the third charge. In relation to that charge the Committee found that, having considered the totality of the evidence, it was unable to be sure that the College had proved the allegation to the requisite standard of proof, namely so that the Committee was sure. Accordingly Charge 3 was dismissed.
The Committee decided that the convictions in the first charge rendered Mr Sutcliffe unfit to practise veterinary surgery and that his conduct in Charge 2 constituted serious professional misconduct.
The Committee then went on to consider sanction.
The Committee considered the aggravating features for both charges. For the first charge it considered the actual injury to one of his victims and risk of injury to the other, noting also that both of his victims were vulnerable people and one was a child, and that the overall incident during which the assaults occurred lasted over a seven hour period.
For the second charge, aggravating factors were that the non-emergency surgery performed by Mr Sutcliffe was wholly inappropriate, that there was a risk of injury to the individual on whom he performed the surgery and that his conduct was reckless.
The mitigating factors considered by the Committee were that Mr Sutcliffe recognised the gravity of the findings against him and demonstrated insight into the allegations, that the incident in charge 1, though prolonged, was an isolated one, that the incident in charge 2 was consensual and did not result in actual harm and that neither charge had any connection with Mr Sutcliffe’s veterinary practice, nor did they affect client care or animal welfare.
Professor Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "As recognised by the Committee, the respondent has displayed insight as to the seriousness of his behaviour. Having regard to the evidence of all the character witnesses and the written testimonials the Committee accepts that the respondent’s conduct as set out in charges 1 and 2 was wholly out of character and, therefore, there is no significant risk of repeat behaviour. The Committee considers that the respondent would be fit to return to practise, having regard to his excellent track record as a veterinary surgeon to date, after any period of suspension.
"Having regards to the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case, the Committee has decided that it is sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct to give a direction for suspension of the respondent’s name from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons.
"The Committee considers that the period of suspension must be sufficient to mark the seriousness of the charges but must be proportionate and fair in the circumstances of the case. The Committee has therefore concluded that the appropriate period of suspension is six months."
Mr Sutcliffe has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to appeal to the Privy Council.
Specifically, Ms Hodgkinson was alleged to have placed five orders between 1 September 2013 and 1 April 2015:
The medications for charges (i) to (iii) above, were intended for her own personal use, as she had previously at various times been prescribed Codeine, Naproxen and Amitriptyline after being involved in a serious car accident in November 2012, as a result of which she suffered from chronic back pain and other problems.
Charges (iv) and (v) above, were intended for her dog, ‘Minnie’, but the dosages ordered were incorrect. The medications were never removed from the practice or given to Minnie, but were instead returned to the wholesaler.
From the outset Ms Hodgkinson admitted the charges against her, although she believed that other staff at the practice had placed similar personal orders and that she had been given permission to do so as well. Ms Hodgkinson also accepted that the facts amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The Committee accepted Ms Hodgkinson’s admission of the charges and, accordingly, found the charges proved. The question of whether the facts amounted to serious professional misconduct was, however, a matter for the Committee’s judgement, notwithstanding Ms Hodgkinson’s admission.
In reaching its decision, the Committee took into account Ms Hodgkinson’s assertion that she believed she had been given permission to order medication through the practice. She did admit however that she must have been mistaken in that belief. The Committee also took note of the College’s submission that a number of aggravating features were present which amounted to serious professional misconduct, namely: the potential risk posed to animal welfare; Ms Hodgkinson’s ignorance of fundamental legislative provisions; a breach of trust placed in her by virtue of her RVN status; the fact that the misconduct was repeated over a period of time; and a lack of awareness of professional responsibilities at the time of the conduct. The Committee therefore had no hesitation that the conduct did amount to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee then turned to the question of sanction. A number of mitigating factors were put forward in Ms Hodgkinson’s defence including the fact that a period of lengthy suspension or removal from the register would result in her losing an offer of employment, the fact that up to the relevant conduct she had had an unblemished career and the fact that she had made early admissions of guilt and shown insight into her misconduct.
The Committee decided that a period of 10 months’ suspension would be appropriate and proportionate in this case.
Chitra Karve, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: "The length of the period of suspension…is intended to reflect this Committee’s view, assisted as it has been by the experience and knowledge of a practising RVN and a veterinary surgeon, of the seriousness of the respondent’s conduct in its totality and of the need for the message to go out to all veterinary professionals that the ordering of POMs without the authority of a valid prescription is a most serious instance of misconduct. In such circumstances the personal mitigations that a practitioner might place before a Disciplinary Committee, whilst not immaterial, is inevitably of limited persuasion. And that is what this Committee has concluded in this particular case, having reflected carefully on the mitigation factors placed before it.
"Having weighed the matters of personal mitigation against the fact that a rudimentary knowledge of the governing legislation was effectively all that was required of the Respondent to ensure that the misconduct complained of did not occur, it is the clear view of the Committee that it would be failing in its public duty were it to do anything less than to impose a period of suspension from practice and the least period of suspension that is appropriate in this case is one of ten months. The Committee therefore instructs the Registrar to act accordingly."
Dr Crespo appeared in front of the Disciplinary Committee earlier this week with two charges against her. The first was that, in November 2015, she dishonestly and falsely made an online representation to the College that she had no criminal convictions, cautions or adverse findings despite having been convicted, in January 2015, of failing to provide a specimen of breath. The second charge against her was that, in March 2016, she once again dishonestly and falsely failed to declare her conviction when renewing her registration.
During the hearing the Committee had two main considerations in respect of both charges – as to whether Dr Marin Crespo had been dishonest in failing to declare the conviction and as to whether the respondent ought to have known that her representations were false. Regarding the dishonesty element, the Committee found the College had not sufficiently proven this, as it accepted Dr Marin Crespo’s evidence that she did not believe she needed to declare a motoring-related offence as it was not relevant to her professional practice.
However, the Committee found it proven that the respondent ought to have known that the representations were false, taking into account that Dr Marin Crespo made admissions that she ought to have checked the guidance on declaring convictions, cautions and/or adverse findings and ought to have been aware that making such declarations is a requirement of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct.
Having found the parts of the two charges relating to false representation proven, the Committee then considered whether this constituted serious professional misconduct.
Judith Webb, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said:"The Committee considers that the false declarations made by the respondent were born of a careless disregard for the disclosure process. The Committee notes that the respondent could easily have checked online, and/or by telephone, as to what she was obliged to do when making the relevant declarations. She failed to do that.
"In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the respondent’s conduct fell far short of that which is to be expected of the veterinary profession. Therefore, in the judgement of the Committee, on the facts found proved, the respondent is guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
In considering Dr Marin Crespo’s sanction the Committee took into account a number of mitigating factors including her full cooperation with the College’s investigation, her hitherto unblemished career, her testimonial evidence which it felt demonstrated her dedication and professionalism, and the fact that she has displayed remorse and insight into her conduct.
Judith Webb concluded: "The Committee notes that the respondent’s conduct caused no harm, or risk of harm, to animals or humans. The Committee also notes that there is no charge arising out of the criminal conviction itself. The Committee considers that, if the respondent had answered the online questions correctly, it is unlikely that the respondent would have appeared before the Committee.
"Every veterinary surgeon must ensure that they adopt a careful and accurate approach to the self-certification exercise, which is crucial if the public and the College are to have trust in that process. In these circumstances, the Committee considered that the proportionate sanction in this case is that the respondent be… reprimanded for her conduct."
A total of 8,234 votes were cast in this year’s election, a turnout of 25.5%. The College says the previous highest turnout recorded this century was 22.8%, and it thinks this year's result may even be an all-time record.
The full results, in order of number of votes, are:
Niall Connell – 3,766 votes (re-elected)
Linda Belton – 3,581 votes (elected)
Jo Dyer – 3,146 votes (re-elected)
John Innes – 2,716 votes
Kate Richards – 2,283 votes
Tim Greet – 2,280 votes
Peter Robinson – 1,791 votes
John Davies – 507 votes
Tom Lonsdale – 422 votes
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for the election, said: "Congratulations to Niall and Jo for being re-elected to Council and congratulations also to Linda who we look forward to welcoming to Council at this year’s Royal College Day on Friday 12 July. I would also like to thank Kate, Tim and Peter for their contributions during their time on Council and give my commiserations to them and the other candidates who were unsuccessful this year.
"I was delighted to see that, this year, we had over a quarter of those eligible to vote doing so which means both a record number of votes and a record turnout – it seems this was assisted by our email reminders which, each time they were sent out, lead to a significant boost in uptake.
"However, we will not rest on our laurels and will continue to think about how we can further improve engagement in the election process and turnout for subsequent years."
The results of the election will be declared formally at this year’s Royal College Day – the College’s Annual General Meeting and awards ceremony – which takes place at the Royal Institute of British Architects on Friday 12 July 2019 where the successful candidates will also start their new four-year terms.
No election to Veterinary Nursing Council was held this year due to the fact that there were only two candidates – Liz Cox and Jane Davidson – standing for the two elected places. Both Liz and Jane will take up their three-year terms at Royal College Day.
The course, which is led by Mental Health First Aid England, comprises of two day-long sessions, the first of which will take place on Tuesday 9th January 2024 from 9am – 5pm and the second on Thursday 11th January.
The course costs £40 per person, and is open to all those working in the veterinary professions.
Advancement of the Professions and Mind Matters Director, Angharad Belcher, said: “This day long training session will help people to gain an understanding of what mental health is and how to challenge stigma, to gain the knowledge and confidence to advocate or mental health awareness, provide them with the ability to spot the signs of mental ill health and the skills to support positive wellbeing, as well as give people the confidence to support someone who is in distress or may be experiencing a mental health issue.
“While these sessions are open to all working in the veterinary professions, we are particularly encouraging vets working in rural areas or in ambulatory work to get involved.
"All veterinary work has its challenges, but we know from MMI funded research conducted by Scotland’s Rural College that rural and ambulatory veterinary work comes with its own set of challenges which is often compounded by working alone or having relatively limited contact with colleagues.
"Those working in rural areas often play integral roles within their local communities and it is therefore important to provide people with the skills to not only look after their own mental health, but with the opportunities to learn how to best support their friends and colleagues too.”
https://vetmindmatters.org/training
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed that the name of a veterinary surgeon who formerly practised in Norwich should be removed from the Register, having found him unfit to practise veterinary surgery following his Crown Court conviction for fraud.
During the one-day hearing, the Disciplinary Committee heard how Francisco da Cruz had abused his position whilst practising as a veterinary surgeon at Hellesdon Vets, his then workplace in Norwich, by defrauding a insurance companies of around £10,000 with fictitious claims for veterinary treatment on non-existent pets.
Following an investigation by the City of London Police's Insurance Fraud Enforcement Department (IFED), Mr da Cruz was convicted on five counts of fraud by false representation on 21 February 2013 at the Old Bailey in London, and later sentenced to eight months' imprisonment (suspended for two years) and 200 hours of unpaid community work; he was also ordered to pay just over £10,000 in compensation and costs.
Although Mr da Cruz had left the UK for Brazil shortly after his sentencing and was therefore not present at the hearing, the Committee was satisfied that he was deliberately evading the disciplinary proceedings, rather than being genuinely unable to participate in them, and so the hearing proceeded in his absence.
First accepting the copy certificate of conviction against Mr da Cruz as true, the Committee then had no hesitation in concluding that these convictions rendered him unfit to practise as a member of the veterinary profession. It found that the five counts of fraud were deliberate crimes of dishonesty, committed over a significant period of time and for significant financial gain. He had abused his position as a veterinary surgeon and abused the trust which the insurers placed in him as a professional.
Chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee, Professor Peter Lees, said: "The Committee has no real confidence that there is no significant risk of repeat behaviour from the Respondent. His conduct subsequent to the criminal proceedings gives it no confidence that he has reformed himself to the extent that he will in the foreseeable future be fit to return to practice. So far from satisfactorily completing his criminal sentence, it appears that the Respondent has deliberately gone abroad to avoid doing so."
Bearing in mind that the purpose of any sanction it imposed was not to punish Mr da Cruz, but to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards of conduct within it, the Committee concluded that the convictions were too serious to allow any sanction other than removal from the Register.
The full details of the Committee's decisions are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
The Disciplinary Committee heard three charges against Dr Jones.
The first and second charges were that, in March 2018, Dr Jones made signed entries in the passports and made corresponding entries in clinical records of four horses indicating that he had administered an influenza vaccination booster to each horse on 15 March 2018 and in relation to another horse a tetanus booster, when in fact he had administered the vaccination boosters on 21 March 2018, and that his conduct was misleading, dishonest and undermined the integrity of a vaccination process designed to promote animal welfare.
The third charge was that, on or around 21 March 2018, Dr Jones failed to make any entries in the clinical records for a horse in relation to an examination on 21 March 2018.
At the outset of the hearing Dr Jones admitted the facts in the first and second charges, and accepted that his actions were misleading, dishonest and that they undermined the integrity of a vaccination process. However, he disputed certain aspects of the written statements of the College’s witnesses. In particular he wanted his conduct to be taken in the context of the pressures that he was working under on that day, primarily that he was in a stressed state having had to euthanase a valuable stallion at the conclusion of his previous client appointment.
Dr Jones did not admit the third charge, explaining that he did not remember examining the horse on 21 March 2018 as alleged.
Based on Dr Jones' own admissions, the Committee found the first and second charges proven.
Regarding the third charge, the Committee heard evidence from the horse’s owner who said they were present during the examination taking place and the Committee was satisfied that the respondent did examine the horse on 21 March 2018 and that he had a duty to make a brief clinical note on the examination. As Dr Jones admitted that he made no such note, the Committee found the charge to have been proven to the requisite standard.
Having found the charges proven, the Committee then went on to consider whether or not Dr Jones’ proven conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct. The Committee, having considered the aggravating and mitigating factors, found that Dr Jones’ conduct as found proved in relation to both charges one and two, did constitute serious professional misconduct.
However, with regards to charge three, the Committee accepted that the respondent simply forgot that he had examined the horse and, therefore, the Committee was not satisfied that the failure to compile a record entry covering the horse’s examination constituted serious professional misconduct.
The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Dr Jones in relation to the facts found proven in charges one and two. In doing so it took into account the 78 written testimonials and 4 character witnesses called on behalf of Dr Jones.
Ian Green, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: "The Committee’s decision on sanction has been based on an acceptance that the respondent’s conduct on this occasion was out-of-character, as the evidence of his character witnesses and the contents of the letters submitted in his support by his clients and other veterinary colleagues assert. The Committee also accepts that the respondent self-reported himself to his employer and to the College and has made a full and frank admission of his wrongdoing.
"Consideration was given to whether the sanction of a reprimand and/or warning as to future conduct would adequately reflect the gravity of the misconduct, however, after careful reflection it was concluded that such a sanction could not be justified. The reason is that acts of falsification involve acts of dishonesty by a professional person acting in a professional capacity, and the gravity of the matter arises not simply from the dishonesty but also from the possible consequences of the false certification. It should be clearly understood by members of the veterinary profession that, in appropriate false certification cases, the sanction of removal from the Register is one which may well be imposed."
The Committee therefore decided that suspending Dr Jones from the Register for two months would be the most appropriate sanction.
The RCVS has launched Mind Matters, a new initiative to help address mental health and wellbeing issues within the veterinary profession.
Neil Smith, RCVS Vice-President and Chair of the Mind Matters Initiative said: “Mental Health is a significant issue for the veterinary profession. Most of us have experience of colleagues or ourselves having problems. The Mind Matters Initiative is a pan-profession project, and I am very pleased that there is active engagement from across the various veterinary associations and stakeholders.”
“The RCVS already contributes through our Health Protocol and support of the Veterinary Benevolent Fund. The Mind Matters Initiative seeks to work more proactively by increasing the accessibility and acceptance of support, encouraging a culture that is better equipped to talk and deal with stress and related mental health issues, and, ultimately, by helping to reduce such triggers within the profession.”
The first Mind Matters Initiative action is providing funding to ensure that callers to Vet Helpline, a completely confidential support service which is part of the Veterinary Benevolent Fund and run by volunteers, are put directly through to a person, rather than having to leave a message.
Rosie Allister, Chair of Vet Helpline said: “We are able to offer confidential, non-judgemental support to many vets, VNs, vet students and members of their families who call us in distress, but we know there are more who are put off by the prospect of leaving a message.
“It takes real courage to reach out for help when you’re struggling, and we know it can be especially tough for vets. Although we respond to calls quickly, callers need to speak to someone immediately, and not a message system, when they are in crisis. Through the Mind Matters Initiative funding we are able to put in place a service that connects a caller directly to a human being, which could make a real difference for people who call.”
The new Vet Helpline system will be in place on 22 December, in time for Christmas, which can be a difficult time for many people. The Vet Helpline number is 07659 811 118 and there is also a confidential email service, accessible via www.vetlife.org.uk.
The Mind Matters Initiative will be sustained over an initial three-year period, and will include five streams of activity:
The Mind Matters Initiative is supported by a group comprising the Veterinary Benevolent Fund, the British Veterinary Association, the British Veterinary Nursing Association, the Veterinary Practice Management Association, the Veterinary Schools Council, the Veterinary Defence Society and the Association of Veterinary Students.
Ms Alcock was convicted on 23 December 2022 at the Lincoln Crown Court, following a guilty plea of being the owner/person in charge of a dog dangerously out of control causing injury resulting in death.
The court heard that in March 2022, Ms Alcock and her partner had taken their dogs to Ostler Plantation at around 11pm to pull a racing sledge.
Kyra was in her pram outside the van when one of the dogs named Blizzard escaped and mauled her.
Kyra was pronounced dead at the scene.
Ms Alcock was sentenced to eight months imprisonment, suspended for two years, and ordered to undertake 80 hours of unpaid work.
During the sentencing of Ms Alcock, the Crown Court judge observed that on 7 December 2021, Ms Alcock gave birth to a very much wanted and loved baby.
The judge noted that both Ms Alcock and her partner were experienced dog handlers and was satisfied that there was a tragic set of circumstances.
The judge went on to note that Ms Alcock and her partner were both used to dogs and that the dog in question, Blizzard, was not a dog who had previously caused any concern.
There was nothing to trigger her attack on the baby; but on this occasion she was dangerously out of control as demonstrated by the attack.
Having taken all evidence into account, as well as advice from the Legal Assessor who provides guidance on the law to all parties involved during a hearing, the Veterinary Nurse Disciplinary Committee did not consider the conviction rendered Ms Alcock unfit to practise.
She was not caring for Blizzard in a professional capacity and the incident occurred outside of her practise as a veterinary nurse.
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
The definition agreed by VN Council is as follows:
Veterinary nursing aims to ease the suffering and pain of animals, and to improve their health and welfare.
This includes providing any medical treatment or any minor surgery (not involving entry into a body cavity) to animals under the direction of a veterinary surgeon who has that animal under their care.
Veterinary nursing can be either proactive or reactive, and autonomous or collaborative. It is carried out in a wide variety of settings, for animals at all life stages, and considers the background and needs of the animal’s owner or keeper.
Matthew Rendle RVN, the Chair of VN Council, said: “Although it is just a few short lines, this definition of veterinary nursing has been in the pipeline for some time.
"While we as veterinary nurses have always been able to define ourselves by the type of tasks we carry out, or our relation to veterinary surgeons in terms of delegation, there hasn’t necessarily been a clear statement articulating the art and science of veterinary nursing.
“With the RCVS looking to expand its regulatory remit to include other veterinary paraprofessionals over the long term, we thought it was particularly important that we set out the stall for veterinary nursing and we hope that this clear statement will, in particular, aid the public in understanding the role of a veterinary nurse.
“It should be noted that this definition is VN Council’s own considered interpretation of the art and science of veterinary nursing.
"Other interpretations from other organisations, provided they conform with both Schedule 3 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act and the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct, could sit comfortably alongside ours, and we hope there continues to be healthy discussion about the contribution of the profession to the veterinary team, as our role evolves.”
What do you think of the definition and do you think it will help change the public and the profession's perceptions. Have your say here: https://www.vetnurse.co.uk/001/f/nonclinical-discussions/32399/what-do-you-think-of-the-new-rcvs-vn-council-definition-of-the-role-of-vet-nurses
Juliet Whatley has joined the RCVS Veterinary Nursing External Verifier (EV) team. The EV team is responsible for verifying the performance of Veterinary Nursing Approved Centres (VNACs), to assure the quality and consistency of NVQ training and assessment against national requirements.
Juliet replaces Susan Newham, and was previously Head of Centre at Hartpury College. She is not a new face to the RCVS - she was part of the team in 1999 under a different structure of 17 ‘sessional' EVs - and we are pleased to welcome her back.
The changes to the EV team have provided the opportunity for the centre roster to be reviewed, so that relationships can stay fresh and objective. The new EV territories will take affect in the New Year and VNACs will be notified of any changes shortly.
The guidance has been in place since March to help practices continue to provide the public with veterinary services whilst safeguarding the health of their teams and clients.
The RCVS Council Covid-19 Taskforce reviewed the situation on 30th July and decided to extend the guidance after taking into account the pandemic’s progress, the latest government guidance, the headline results from a survey of practice experience of remote consulting, and 'other data from a number of veterinary practices'.
The Taskforce says it also considered the need to continue to provide practices with flexibility in the face of possible local or national lockdowns, the need for inclusivity of those practice teams members and clients who may still be shielding, the likelihood of quarantine of members of the team due to travel and/or Test and Trace and the fact that no major safety issues had been identified as part of the RCVS-commissioned survey into the immediate impact of the temporary guidance.
RCVS President Mandisa Greene, who chairs the Taskforce, said: “Whilst lockdown measures have been eased and matters have improved, we are far from being back to business as usual and the threat of returning to more severe lockdown measures, whether locally or nationally, is still very much alive."
The updated flowchart, along with all the College’s coronavirus guidance for the professions, is available at: www.rcvs.org.uk/coronavirus.
Mr Garcia had pleaded guilty of harassment at Nottingham Magistrates Court last September and was sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months. The magistrates also imposed a restraining order and ordered Mr Garcia to pay compensation and costs as well as a surcharge to fund victim services.
The harassment conviction related to incidents between 30 September 2016 and 27 December 2016 in which Mr Garcia engaged in conduct that amounted to harassment towards a woman including sending offensive text messages, visiting her place of work, attempting to contact her through social media, going to her home address and driving past her home address.
At the outset of the disciplinary hearing Mr Garcia admitted the College's charge against him and that his conviction rendered him unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
Following cross-examination of Mr Garcia on the facts of the case and having considered representation from his counsel, the Disciplinary Committee found that Mr Garcia’s conduct leading to conviction and the conviction itself rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
Mehmuda Mian, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "It was a serious conviction as demonstrated by the sentence imposed and by the nature of the harassment. It brought distress on [the victim] and will have damaged the reputation of the veterinary profession. The respondent was right to accept that this was the case."
Turning to the sanction for Mr Garcia the Committee considered a number of aggravating factors in his case including the distress caused to the victim as some of the text messages could be interpreted as threats to harm; the fact that Mr Garcia had continued to contact the victim after receiving a warning from the police; the fact he visited her place of work; that there was a sexual element to some of the messages he sent to the victim; and that the pattern of behaviour was sustained over three months and only ended with his arrest. It also considered that his behaviour was contrary to the Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance’s advice on professional and appropriate use of social media.
The Committee also considered mitigating factors such as the fact that, during the period of his conduct, there was a family illness and bereavement; that he admitted the charges before the magistrates and the Committee; that ‘social ineptitude’ was a factor and that he did not recognise the rejection he received from the victim; testimonials as to his capabilities as a veterinary surgeon; and insight into his behaviour as well as taking steps to avoid its repetition.
Ms Mian concluded: "The Committee has determined to suspend the respondent’s registration for a period of five months. This sanction reflects the seriousness of the conviction and the concerns expressed by the Committee in this determination. It will send a message to the respondent and to the profession that conduct such as this is unacceptable. It will afford an opportunity to the respondent to reflect further on his behaviour."
Mr Garcia will have 28 days from the end of the hearing to appeal against the Committee’s decision.
The Committee’s full findings and decision are available at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The trial starts on Monday 11 July and will continue for three months to allow the College to determine levels of demand for such a service and, therefore, whether it should be made permanent.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Acting Registrar, said: "This was a potential service identified in our Strategic Plan as a way of allowing veterinary professionals to have informal, confidential, discussions with members of the Professional Conduct Department about potential fitness to practise issues, short of formally raising a concern.
"Although any discussions via the new reporting line or email address will be confidential, if a veterinary surgeon or a veterinary nurse subsequently wishes to raise a formal concern about another veterinary professional, then they generally will need to identify both themselves and the individual in order to take it through our investigation process.
"We have developed a bespoke concerns form for members of the professions who do want to raise concerns about other professionals."
Veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who wish to contact a member of the RCVS Professional Conduct Department in confidence can do so by calling 07599 958 294 between 9am and 5pm, or by emailing reporting@rcvs.org.uk.
The bespoke concerns from for members of the profession can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns.
Mr Rushton was convicted of sexual assault after pleading guilty at Wood Green Crown Court in December 2022.
He was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, made subject to a restraining order and a 10-year sexual harm prevention order as well as being placed on the Sex Offenders Register for 10 years.
He was also ordered to pay £3,000 costs and a £140 victims’ surcharge.
Mr Rushton did not attend the RCVS hearing, where the facts of the charge were proven by the certificate of conviction and the judge’s sentencing remarks.
In considering whether the conviction rendered Mr Rushton unfit to practise veterinary medicine, the Committee considered that the case involved the sexual assault of a vulnerable woman who was also a professional colleague, and was a serious abuse of trust, reflected in the custodial sentence.
Dr Neil Slater MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “It was evident from the judge’s sentencing remarks that [the victim] had been seriously affected by the knowledge of what had occurred on that evening.
"That knowledge was bound, in itself, to be very distressing and according to the victim’s impact statement had a long- lasting impact on the victim’s self-esteem, resilience and relationship with others.
"The victim’s level of distress can only have been increased by the knowledge that the respondent had filmed and/or photographed his activity while she was unconscious and that the images were included on a memory stick which contained a number of other voyeuristic images.”
"The Committee was satisfied that the respondent’s behaviour had caused [the victim] significant psychological injury and carried with it a risk of causing such injury.
“The Committee was also satisfied that [the victim] was especially vulnerable because of the significant quantity of alcohol that she had consumed.
"In the circumstances that evolved, she was in the respondent’s care.
"The respondent abused the position of trust and responsibility that he occupied.
"He was a senior colleague, at a professional conference.
"Instead of taking appropriate steps to secure the welfare of [the victim], he used the position in which he found himself to engage in predatory sexual misconduct.
"Furthermore, his behaviour was opportunistic and, as the judge said, “clearly driven by [his] sexual desires."
Taking into account these factors, the Committee found that Dr Rushton was unfit to practise and next considered the sanction.
The Committee found no mitigating factors regarding the conviction but did take into account the fact there had been no previous regulatory findings against him.
In deciding the sanction, the Committee also noted that there was little evidence before them that Dr Rushton had shown serious insight into the impact of his offending.
Neil added: “In this context the Committee also noted that the respondent maintained a plea of not guilty until three days before a rearranged trial was due to take place, and subsequently advanced an account of what he said was his relationship with [the victim] which the judge found to be false.
“Taking all of these factors into account, the Committee is satisfied that removal from the register is the only proportionate outcome to this case.
"This sanction is necessary to declare and uphold appropriate standards of conduct for members of the veterinary profession and to maintain public confidence in the profession.”
The Veterinary Capability and Capacity Project (VCCP) is co-chaired by the UK’s Chief Veterinary Officer Nigel Gibbens, RCVS Senior Vice-President Dr Chris Tufnell, and BVA Senior Vice-President Gudrun Ravetz. The project board also comprises the CVOs for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, Sheila Voas, Christianne Glossop and Robert Huey, as well as the Animal and Plant Health Agency and the Food Standards Agency.
The project’s objective is to work with the veterinary sector to better understand the UK’s workforce needs and ensure that both the Government and veterinary businesses can continue to protect animal health and welfare, safeguard the food chain and maintain levels of public health and public services, and enable trade in animals and animal products.
The project will include a joint BVA-RCVS submission to the Migration Advisory Committee’s call for evidence on workforce issues post-Brexit. Three working groups have been set up within the project to look specifically at issues of veterinary resources, recruitment and retention.
The UK’s Chief Veterinary Officer, Nigel Gibbens, said: "Leaving the EU provides us with an opportunity to develop gold standard policies on animal welfare. The UK Government is determined to get a good Brexit deal for Britain and Ministers have been absolutely clear we will maintain our world-leading animal welfare standards.
"The VCCP is a great example of collaborative working between government, professional bodies and regulators to prepare for our exit from the European Union.
"I am pleased the Prime Minister has set out the government’s aim to secure the status of the veterinary workforce as a top priority as we leave the EU. The UK’s vets - both Official Veterinarians and those in the private sector - play a key role in protecting our country from endemic and exotic diseases, tackling outbreaks when they occur, safeguarding our animals and tackling global challenges like antibiotic resistance."
Chris Tufnell said: "Since the vote to leave the European Union last year the RCVS has been working in partnership with BVA to highlight to Government and others the potential workforce shortages that could arise from a loss of non-UK EU-qualified vets, particularly in public health work where they tend to predominate. Our position was highlighted in our Brexit Principles published earlier this year and at an event organised by us and the BVA at the Palace of Westminster for MPs and Peers.
"We are very glad that Defra is working proactively with us and BVA to understand the scale of the issues and map out the risks and opportunities and to help us plan for a number of different scenarios in advance so that we do not find ourselves in a position whereby animal health and welfare or public health might be compromised by workforce shortages."
BVA Senior Vice President Gudrun Ravetz said: "Vets provide the foundation for the UK’s high animal health and welfare, and make an essential contribution to the UK economy and wider society. Veterinary teams up and down the country support the UK’s 11 million pet-owning households; not a penny of the UK’s £12.7 billion livestock industry could be realised without vets; and vets are vital to facilitating UK trade, through health certification and controls, so that consumers have confidence in the food safety and welfare of the products they buy.
"Non-UK EU vets make up around 50% of our new workforce each year yet, since the EU referendum; we are facing increasing problems in recruiting and retaining EU colleagues to the UK. The impact of the loss of even a small percentage of the veterinary workforce could have serious repercussions on the practices, communities and industries that vets serve. This profession-wide project is pivotal to ensuring we have a veterinary workforce that can serve the UK’s needs post-Brexit."
The BVA’s Brexit and the veterinary profession report can be found at www.bva.co.uk/news-campaigns-and-policy/policy/future-of-the-profession/brexit/
To read the College’s Brexit Principles in full visit www.rcvs.org.uk/brexit
The Prime Minister has set out the government’s offer for EU citizens in the UK and UK nationals in the EU on their rights and status after the UK leaves the EU: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/safeguarding-the-position-of-eu-citizens-in-the-uk-and-uk-nationals-in-the-eu
The government’s response to House of Lord’s EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee’s inquiry into Brexit: Farm Animal Welfare also addresses veterinary capability post-Brexit:https://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/eu-energy-environment-subcommittee/Brexit-farm-animal-welfare/Gov-Brexit-farm-anim.pdf
The committee heard five charges against Dr Davies at a resumed hearing of an inquiry which was originally adjourned in January and then July 2018. The decision was made, at both the 2018 hearings, to postpone the final decision on the sanction.
The first two charges against Dr Davies related to convictions for drink driving in March 2014 and October 2015 for which she received driving bans of 17 and 45 months.
The third charge related to her breaching a number of undertakings she had entered into as part of the College’s Health Protocol, including her consuming alcohol on four occasions between May 2015 and January 2016 and missing a pre-arranged appointment with a consultant psychiatrist appointed.
The fourth and fifth charges related to being under the influence of alcohol on three occasions while she was on duty as a veterinary surgeon in December 2016 which was also in breach of her undertakings under the Health Protocol.
At Dr Davies' first Disciplinary Committee hearing in January 2018, she admitted all five charges against her and also accepted that her conduct was disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The Committee accepted her admissions and found, with the exception of one allegation, that her conduct was disgraceful in a professional respect.
At the conclusion of its hearing on 23 January 2018 the Committee decided to postpone its decision regarding sanction for six months on the basis of Dr Davies’ entering into undertakings, including not to practise veterinary surgery and to remain abstinent from alcohol during the period of postponement and to undergo blood and hair tests for alcohol consumption every two months.
At the resumed hearing on 30 July 2018, Dr Davies’ Counsel submitted on her behalf that she wished to return to practise and the Committee reviewed evidence that she provided to demonstrate she had complied with her undertakings.
However, the Committee retained concerns about Dr Davies' return to practise and therefore required her to identify a veterinary surgeon who would agree to act as her mentor, noting that the mentor would have to be acceptable to the College as someone suitable to act in that capacity.
The Committee also required the continuation of the requirements for abstinence from alcohol and the programme of blood and hair testing.
A further requirement of the Committee was that Dr Davies should make a disclosure to any new employer of her appearances before the Committee in January 2018 and in July 2018 and of the decisions it made.
The final requirement of the Committee was that the respondent should not accept a ‘sole charge position’ at any time during her employment during this next period of postponement of sanction. The Committee then directed that the hearing be postponed for a further 12 months.
The Disciplinary Committee resumed its inquiry on 7th August 2019, when Dr Davies submitted documentary proof and medical records to demonstrate she had complied with all her undertakings given at the last hearing. The Committee also heard from Dr Davies’ appointed veterinary mentor who provided a statement that concluded that she no longer needed monitoring or supervision.
The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Dr Davies.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The view of the Committee is that the respondent has to date overcome her addiction to alcohol and, given that her competence as a practising veterinary surgeon is not disputed, that she should therefore be permitted to return to her chosen profession. However, in the judgment of this Committee the seriousness of the offences to which the Respondent has pleaded guilty means that a sanction of “No Further Action” cannot be justified."
The Committee therefore decided that the most proportionate sanction was for Dr Davies to be reprimanded as to the conduct she admitted at previous hearings and that she be warned as to her future conduct.
Ian added: "The respondent must understand that she has been given an opportunity to prove that, for the remainder of her time in practice, she can meet the high standards expected of all registered veterinary surgeons from both other practitioners and from members of the public who entrust the care and treatment of their animals to members of this profession."