The RCVS has launched a consultation about how the profession should, in the future, be governed.

The consultation is open to veterinary surgeons, nurses, students, and the public.

One of the main - and most controversial - proposals in the consultation, which was unveiled by RCVS President Sue Patterson at BVA Live last week, is that the elected councils would be replaced by an independent merit-and-skills appointment-based system. 

Sue discussed the main benefits of an appointment-based system at BVA Live: 

• An appointment-based system is more accessible - anyone can apply and the process is less daunting and potentially off-putting than the 'hell' of elections by social media, which are causing the College to 'miss out on so much talent.'
• People are currently elected to Council on a bit of a false premise: that with their opinion-based manifestos, they are able to represent the electorate. They are not. They are there to be representative of the profession.
• An appointment based system allows the College to select a more representative group on Council, including people from all over the UK and people who are representative of different areas of the profession, such as new graduates, production animal vets and people from the public health centre.
• Appointed candidates, selected for their skills and experience, should be more able to hit the ground running when they start on Council, where currently it can take time to get new Council members up to speed.

Other proposed changes include:

• to have parity or near parity of laypeople and members of the profession on Council, to assure the public that the RCVS, as the regulator, is not ‘setting and marking its own homework’.
• to build in flexibility to allow veterinary paraprofessionals which have been identified as requiring regulation by the RCVS, such as veterinary technicians, musculoskeletal therapists, clinical animal behaviourists and equine dental technicians and cattle foot trimmers to be members of RCVS Council.
• to separate the Chair of RCVS Council from the presidency, so that the Chair of Council, also selected for their skills and ability, would remain in post for longer than the presidential term, offering greater continuity.
• to remove Veterinary Schools Council appointees and instead ensure there is an appropriate level of educationalist expertise on the RCVS Education Committee and on RCVS Council via the independent appointment process.
• to reduce the size of VN Council from 14 to 12 members in line with regulatory norms and to ensure that there is a focus on strategy and governance while maintaining a broad range of knowledge and experience.  

The good governance proposals are part of the College’s overall legislative reform agenda in which it is seeking to replace the 1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act with new and more modern, flexible and forward-looking legislation, which would expand the regulatory remit of the College to encompass veterinary practice premises and paraprofessionals, while empowering veterinary nurses and creating a new fitness to practise system.

Sue said: “The current governance structure of the RCVS is set by the VSA and updating our governance systems is a vital prerequisite to getting new primary legislation, as the outdated and out-of-step nature of our current arrangements will be clear to see.

“Governance may not be the most exciting topic, but it is the foundation on which all other aspects of the College’s work rests.

"As a professional regulator with animal health and welfare at our heart, the RCVS has a duty to ensure that our arrangements best serve the public on whose behalf we are entrusted to regulate and uphold veterinary standards, while still maintaining veterinary input in all our decision-making processes.

“We believe these good governance proposals help us meet this mission, ensuring that we are bringing our governance in line with regulatory norms, while still recognising our unique role as a dual regulator and royal college.

"The proposals would also help us get the best talent with the right skillsets and experience to serve on RCVS Council, VN Council and our committees, drawing on both laypeople and the broad sweep of the veterinary professions.

“We acknowledge that there has been some disquiet over the fact that, under these proposals, we would no longer be holding the annual elections to either RCVS Council or VN Council.

"However, we believe that an independent, fair and skills-based appointment process would be a superior way of selecting the membership of RCVS Council and VN Council than the elections which, unfortunately, the vast majority of the veterinary professions do not currently engage in, and which risk creating the impression that the RCVS is some sort of representative organisation.

“We look forward to hearing the considered views of the professions and public regarding our good governance proposals and will carefully review the feedback we receive.”

Belinda Andrews-Jones RVN, current Chair of VN Council, added: “In many ways VN Council is ahead of the curve in terms of governance reform with a smaller number of members and two independently-appointed veterinary nurse members – of which I am one – as well as appointed lay members.

“I can personally vouch for the robust nature of the application and independent appointment process for VN Council and how it took into account what I had to offer to the role in terms of my skills, my knowledge and my experience.

“I would like to thank my fellow members of VN Council, including my elected peers, for their positive engagement with the good governance proposals and their recognition that these reforms aren’t about reducing scrutiny of the College or the amount of challenge to its decisions, but about improving outcomes for the public, their animals and the professions at large.”

The good governance recommendations have been drawn up on the basis of the Law Commission’s 2014 Report ‘Regulation of Health and Social Care Professionals’, the recommendations from which were adopted by the UK government as being the ‘regulatory norm’.

The College says any future appointment processes for RCVS Council and VN Council would also be based on the Professional Standards Authority’s appointment principles of merit, fairness, transparency and openness and having a process that inspires confidence.

The deadline for completing the consultation is Monday 22 July 2024.

https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/our-consultations/ensuring-good-governance/ 

The College will also be presenting the proposals at a Zoom webinar called being chaired by Sue between 7pm and 8pm tomorrow evening, Tuesday 11 June 2024: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/ensuring-good-governance-tickets-920243973497 

The RCVS has launched ‘Let’s talk adjustments’, a campaign to raise awareness of reasonable adjustments employers should make to remove or reduce a disadvantage related to an employee’s disability, whether it be physical or mental.

Reasonable adjustments can include changing working arrangements and providing equipment, services and support.

The campaign will address common myths and misconceptions surrounding reasonable adjustments and highlight the legal obligations of leaders and managers around implementation.

The campaign, which will run until the end of July, is being launched after an RCVS/British Veterinary Chronic Illness Support (BCVIS) survey concluded there is a need to increase awareness about reasonable adjustments, promote wider discussion and equip organisations with the information they need to implement them.

The research also indicated that improved knowledge of legislation is needed, with communication also being raised as an important issue, so that individuals feel empowered to ask for the support they need.

MMI Lead, Rapinder Newton, said: “Our ‘Let’s talk adjustments’ campaign will support people to have these important conversations by sharing information, educational resources and guidance on good practice.

"It will also provide examples of different types of adjustments, including examples that are specific to the veterinary context.

“We know that physical and mental health are deeply interconnected.

"Reasonable adjustments can support both physical and mental health but also helps to safeguard mental health through allowing individuals with disabilities to thrive.

“We will be keeping people updated on the campaign, which has its own dedicated section on the RCVS website, via the RCVS social media channels, as well as providing information in RCVS newsletters, so do keep an eye out for this over the coming months.”

https://www.rcvs.org.uk/lifelong-learning/leadership-diversity-and-inclusion/reasonable-adjustments-campaign/ 

Photo courtesy: https://depositphotos.com 

The RCVS has announced that it is to host an open day on Monday 15 December for those members of the veterinary and veterinary nursing professions who are interested in joining the College’s Preliminary Investigation Committee (PIC), Disciplinary Committee (DC) or Veterinary Nurse Preliminary Investigation Committee (VN PIC).

In January 2015 the College will be looking to recruit veterinary members for PIC and DC following a legislative reform order last year to reconstitute them separately from RCVS Council. This means that the committees must be made up of veterinary and lay members who are not on Council and members will be appointed on the advice of an independent selection committee.

The RCVS will be seeking to recruit four veterinary surgeons for DC as well as three veterinary surgeons for PIC. At the same time the College will be recruiting two registered veterinary nurses and a veterinary surgeon for VN PIC. Applications are particularly sought from practising or recently retired clinicians.

The Open Day (at Belgravia House from 9.30am to 4pm) will provide the opportunity for those who are interested in applying to hear from current members of each committee about what being a committee member is really like and the type of cases dealt with. Recruitment consultants will also be on hand to explain the hiring process and attendees will have the opportunity to put questions to Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar.

Those who are interested in attending the Open Day should contact Peris Dean, Executive Secretary, on p.dean@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0761 to register an interest or request an agenda.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded Gloucestershire veterinary surgeon Adele Lewis for failing to pass on information about a horse’s clinical history to a potential buyer during a pre-purchase examination.

Ms Lewis, the sole principal of the Cotswold Equine Clinic in Lechlade, Gloucestershire, carried out the examination of a pony called Luke on 13 February 2014. Luke was owned by Mrs Booth who was a long-established client of Ms Lewis, both at her previous practice, Bourton Vale, and at her current practice. The examination was carried out on behalf of the prospective purchaser, Mrs Grieve.

Upon examination Ms Lewis certified that, in her opinion, Luke’s veterinary history did not increase the risk of purchase.

Following the purchase of Luke, Mrs Grieve attempted to obtain insurance for Luke and found out from a pet insurance company that a claim had been made by Mrs Booth in September 2013. She subsequently found out that, following concerns expressed by Mrs Booth and her trainer about Luke’s movement and their wanting an expert opinion, Ms Lewis had referred him to Dr Kold, a Specialist in Equine Orthopaedics, in September 2013. Dr Kold had diagnosed Luke with lameness and had given him intra-articular medication. Luke had also had a follow-up appointment with Dr Kold about four weeks later in October 2013.  

The Disciplinary Committee hearing commenced on Tuesday 13 October 2015. At the outset, Ms Lewis admitted several parts of the charges (charge A and charge B) against her. In regards to charge A, she admitted that she had failed to inform Mrs Grieve that, when she examined Luke on 24 September 2013, his then owner Mrs Booth had complained firstly that Luke was “not tracking up and going forward” and, secondly, that he had improved significantly when put on a Phenylbutazone trial. She also admitted that she had referred him to Dr Kold for a poor performance investigation and that she ought to have informed Mrs Grieve of these matters.

In regards to charge B, she admitted that she completed a Certificate of Veterinary Examination in which she had declared that Luke’s veterinary history did not increase the risk of purchase and allowed the vendor’s declaration to include assertions that there had been no previous lameness and no intra-articular medication given in the last 12 months. Ms Lewis admitted that she ought to have known that her declaration that Luke’s veterinary history did not increase the risk of purchase was incorrect.

However, Ms Lewis denied being aware that Dr Kold had diagnosed lameness, administered an intra-articular corticosteroid to Luke and examined and noted a problem with his breathing, including upper airway disease and possible lower airway disease. Furthermore, she denied dishonesty in regards to both the charges against her and in relation to vendor declarations made on the Certificate of Veterinary Examination regarding previous lameness and intra-articular medication.

During the course of the hearing, Ms Lewis told the Committee that she had not received the reports about the two consultations by Dr Kold (despite their having been sent to her by letter and, with respect to the second report, also by email) and that she was therefore unaware of his findings when she carried out the pre-purchase examination. She also stated that she had not been informed of these by Mrs Booth. During her evidence, Ms Lewis also admitted having entered inaccurate information on a veterinary report to assist with an insurance claim.

The Committee did not find Ms Lewis to be an impressive witness citing the fact that her “explanations as to her practice showed a worrying absence of probity in the completion of veterinary reports for the purposes of insurance claims, and an absence of any effective practice management, consistent with acceptable practice.”

However, the Committee felt it did not have the evidence to conclude that Ms Lewis had acted dishonestly during the pre-purchase examination. It cited the fact that her actions, when informed by the purchaser Mrs Grieve of Dr Kold’s examination, did not appear to be those of someone trying to cover their tracks.

In regards to charge A, the Committee also found that the “apparently chaotic manner in which Ms Lewis ran her practice, and her own opinion that the pony was sound, would appear to have led her to wrongly disregard these matters from disclosure.”

In making its decision on her conduct and sanction, the Committee said that Ms Lewis’ failure to fully communicate to Mrs Grieve all the relevant information about Luke’s veterinary history fell far short of the conduct expected from a veterinary surgeon. It also cited the utmost importance of a complete and accurate certification process, as made clear in the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct and the Twelve Principles of Certification.  

Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said:  “The Committee continues to emphasise the importance of maintaining the integrity of veterinary certification in any aspect of practice. Mrs Grieve told this Committee that if she had been fully informed about Luke’s veterinary history she would not have purchased the pony. It is clear from the evidence that it affected Mrs Grieve’s ability to insure the pony. Ms Lewis has accepted that the information about Luke’s veterinary history, not having been disclosed, was capable of affecting the risk of purchase. The public are entitled to rely upon veterinary surgeons providing complete and accurate information, when certificates and reports are prepared.”

In mitigation, the Committee paid regard to Ms Lewis’ inexperience at running her own practice and found no issue with her competence or clinical ability as a veterinary surgeon. It concluded that she had acted out of character and that there was no financial motivation for her actions. It also found it “highly relevant that the facts admitted and found proved related to a single pre-purchase examination.”

It also noted that Ms Lewis has now put in place a practice management system and has shown insight into her actions, by taking active steps to better comply with her obligations under the Code of Professional Conduct. She had also made early admissions of guilt and made a full apology to both Mrs Grieve and the RCVS both at the outset of the hearing, and in her evidence.

Chitra Karve added: “Having had the opportunity of observing her demeanour at this hearing, the Committee believes that it is unlikely that she will repeat her conduct.... The Committee has concluded that an appropriate and proportionate response in this case is to reprimand Ms Lewis.”

The RCVS is reminding veterinary nurses that they need to pay their annual renewal fee before the end of the year or they will be removed from the Register.

Just over 1,000 veterinary nurses have not yet paid their annual renewal fee of £61 and if this is not received on or before 31 December 2016 then their names will be removed from the Register. Those who have their name removed will not be able to use the postnominal ‘RVN’ and will not be able to carry out medical treatments and minor surgery as defined under Schedule 3 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act (www.rcvs.org.uk/delegation).

In order to restore their name to the Register they will have to pay a restoration fee of £51 in addition to the £61 renewal fee.

The easiest way to pay the fee is to log in to the ‘My Account’ area of the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/login) using the credentials provided to each veterinary nurse by the College’s Registration Department. If these credentials have been lost or misplaced the Registration Department can be contacted on 020 7202 0707 or registration@rcvs.org.uk. 

For details about alternative methods of payment visit www.rcvs.org.uk/about-us/fees/how-to-pay or contact the RCVS Finance Team on finance@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0723.

As well as paying the annual renewal fee, veterinary nurses should also confirm their Register and correspondence details, confirm that they comply with the College’s current requirements for continuing professional development and declare any convictions, cautions and/or adverse findings.

Northamptonshire-based Gabor Nemes MRCVS has been found not guilty of serious professional misconduct, after posting derogatory remarks about his employer, Mate Toth MRCVS, on Facebook.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee heard two charges against Dr Nemes, the first being that he had posted comments on social media about another veterinary surgeon, his employer, Dr Toth, which were offensive and/or derogatory and/or inappropriate.

The second charge was that Dr Nemes had posted his comments without having sufficient regard to maintaining their confidentiality and/or privacy. 

Dr Nemes admitted the charges, though he did inform the Committee that his admission with respect to the second charge was caveated by the proposition that the comments were posted in private messages on Facebook with a limited membership, namely employees of Healers Veterinary Centre (Dr Toth’s practice).

The Committee noted the Respondent’s admissions as to the charges raised against him and pronounced the facts found proved.

In relation to the first charge, the Committee found that the comments on social media were, without a doubt, highly unprofessional. They included offensive language, were gratuitously personal against Dr Toth, and were made within an online chat which included junior lay staff, all employed by Dr Toth.

This behaviour was seen to directly contravene a numbers of parts of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct, in particular Paragraph 5.3 that states: "Veterinary Surgeons and Veterinary Nurses should not speak or write disparagingly about another Veterinary Surgeon or Veterinary Nurse."

In relation to the second charge, the Committee found that Dr Nemes had paid no regard to maintaining the confidentiality and/or privacy of his malicious and damaging entries to the chat. 

At the outset of his evidence, Dr Nemes admitted that the proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct. The Committee noted however that the question of whether he was guilty of serious professional misconduct or not was in fact a matter for it to decide, notwithstanding his admission.

The Committee considered the fact that the period of time that Dr Nemes was involved in making postings was effectively about two weeks, that his involvement followed his wife’s dismissal from employment (representing a breach of Dr Nemes’ resignation conditions), and that he was very stressed at the time.

It also considered Dr Nemes’ point that he had never anticipated that Dr Toth would see the Facebook Messenger conversation, and that the relevant RCVS supporting guidance to the Code concerning good practice when using social media and online networking forums was only published in late November 2014 when Dr Nemes’ involvement in the conversation was virtually at an end.

In summing up, Ian Green, Chair of the Committee, said: "The Committee carefully considered the circumstances surrounding the Facebook Messenger entries which the Respondent posted from 13 November 2014. It noted that at the time he had handed in his resignation, morale at the practice was very low. The Facebook Messenger chat site had been started amongst the receptionist/animal carers. A perusal of the entries before the Respondent joined on 13 November 2014 demonstrates that morale was low among that group.

"…Notwithstanding the nature of the remarks posted on the Facebook Messenger, which the Committee deplores, it has reached the conclusion that, whilst the Respondent’s behaviour amounts to misconduct and falls short of the standards expected of a member of the veterinary profession, it does not amount to serious misconduct and does not fall far short.

"In the circumstances it has reached the unusual conclusion that, notwithstanding the Respondent’s admission, the appropriate finding is that he is not guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."

Vets Now has published a response to the RCVS DC ruling in which Munhuwepasi Chikosi, a locum working for the company, was struck off for delaying an emergency OOH home visit. 

The response is available in full here: http://www.vets-now.com/news/?item=4191

Suffolk-based Stephanie Hazelwood has been suspended by the RCVS VN Disciplinary Committee for three months after she admitted stealing a prescription-only veterinary medication and pet food from the veterinary practice where she worked.

Ms Hazelwood faced three charges: 

• that she had, on three separate occasions, taken bags of pet food from the practice without paying for them;
• that she had taken a prescription-only veterinary medication, from the practice without paying for it or having a prescription from a veterinary surgeon for the product; and
• that her conduct in relation to the previous two charges was dishonest and in respect of the latter, risked undermining procedures there to protect animal welfare.

Having accepted her admissions on the charges, the Committee considered whether the three charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.

Regarding misconduct, Ms Hazelwood had also written to the RCVS prior to the start of the hearing and had accepted her conduct fell far short of what was expected of a veterinary nurse.

The Committee itself considered that Ms Hazelwood stealing the medication and other products was a serious breach of the trust placed in her by her employer, which had entrusted her with access to veterinary medications and their responsible use.

The Committee also considered that her conduct undermined the reputation of the profession and the public’s confidence  in those within it. Accordingly, the Committee found that the charges amounted to serious professional conduct.

In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee considered that her conduct was a breach of trust and abuse of her professional position, that there was a possible risk to animal health in terms of the prescription-only veterinary medicine, that the conduct involved financial gain (albeit limited), that the conduct was sustained and repeated over a period of time, and that elements of her conduct were premeditated and sophisticated.

In terms of mitigation, the Committee noted that Ms Hazelwood had no previous disciplinary history and a hitherto unblemished career, that she had made open and frank admissions on her conduct and demonstrated genuine remorse, that there was no actual harm to animals, and that she demonstrated significant insight into her actions and the impact they could have on her colleagues and the wider profession, as well as taking into account a number of positive testimonials.

Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee noted the mitigating factors in this case and that Ms Hazelwood stole these items at a time when she was under particular financial and personal pressure.

"She said it was out of character and her testimonials supported this assertion."

"The amounts involved were small and had been repaid.

“Furthermore, it was apparent that at the time Ms Hazelwood was struggling financially and her motivation was not so much financial gain but rather the need to feed and protect her animals.

"It was unfortunate that Ms Hazelwood had not attended this hearing, but in her written submissions she had, in the Committee’s view, demonstrated significant insight.

"Her writing came from the heart, she clearly recognised what a dreadful thing she had done and provided genuine expressions of apology and remorse.  

“The Panel noted that Ms Hazelwood had worked as a veterinary nurse for some 16 years without incident.

"Her testimonials describe her as a very experienced and competent nurse, with an excellent work ethic and a real passion for the animals in her care.”

She added: “The Committee considered a period of suspension to mark the behaviour was both appropriate and proportionate in all the circumstances.

The order will be for a period of three months to reflect the seriousness of Ms Hazelwood’s disgraceful conduct, whilst reflecting the significant mitigation.

In light of the insight she has shown, the Committee was satisfied that it was highly unlikely Ms Hazelwood would ever behave in this way again and that she would be fit to return to practice after the period of suspension.

The Committee considered it would be wrong to deprive the profession of an otherwise competent veterinary nurse and that a member of the public in full possession of all the facts would not have their confidence in the profession undermined by such a decision.”

The full details of the case and the Committee’s decision can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

In a landmark disciplinary case last week, Staffordshire-based veterinary surgeon Roger Meacock MRCVS has undertaken to amend his website after the College alleged it contained content which was either misleading or inaccurate to the point of bringing the profession into disrepute.

Mr Meacock faced six charges relating to his website - naturalhealingsolutions.co.uk - which has claimed, amongst many other things, that:

• e-Lybra9 Bio-Resonance Technology reveals weaknesses in the immune system and strengthens it to increase resistance to disease;
• Quinton Marine Plasma allows the body to recover from a wide range of medical diseases;
• the specific properties of the localised environment created by the Russian Healing Blanket around the patient’s body provide the desired activation of the body’s self-regulatory and self-recovery mechanisms;
• Aerobic Oxygen has been found to have a wide range of health benefits;

VetNurse.co.uk understands this is the first time that claims made on a practitioner's website have been the subject of a disciplinary hearing. However, before the case could be heard and the claims tested, counsel for the College and the defendant met in private, whereupon Mr Meacock voluntarily entered into undertakings with the RCVS to amend his website in order to make it compliant with his professional responsibilities.

As a result, the College applied to adjourn the hearing generally (ie indefinitely). This application was not opposed by Mr Meacock and was granted by the Committee.

Judith Webb, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, explained that the adjourned charges would be kept open indefinitely but the Committee encouraged the College not to extend the period beyond two years. However, if at any time in the future Mr Meacock failed to keep up his undertakings or made further claims which the College found unacceptable, then a fresh case could be brought.

Because Mr Meacock's undertakings were agreed in private, it is not yet known whether he has agreed to remove all of the content on his website alleged by the College to bring the profession into disrepute, although presumably time will tell.

In addition, it is not clear whether Mr Meacock also undertook not to practice those treatments which the College claimed bring the profession into disrepute (as opposed to just advertising them on his website). 

Either way, the implications of the case could stretch beyond Marine Plasma, Russian Healing Blankets and Bio-Resonance Technology. In particular, it raises a serious question over the unsupported claims being made by other practitioners of alternative and complementary therapies, such as the claim by the British Association of Homeopathic Veterinary Surgeons that homeopathy is effective in resolving cancer: http://www.bahvs.com/cured-cases/.

The Committee's full findings and decision are available here.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded and warned Dr Natalia Anna Strokowska for dishonesty in communication and for failing to get permission to share photos on social media.

The Disciplinary Committee considered four charges against Dr Strokowska. The first was that, whilst registered in the 'Practising Outside the United Kingdom' category of the Register of Veterinary Surgeons maintained by the RCVS, she practised as a veterinary surgeon in the counties of Somerset, Shropshire, London, Lancashire and Norfolk between July 2016 and August 2017 when she was not registered as UK-practising. The charges were that her conduct in relation to this was dishonest and misleading to her employer and/or clients.

The second charge was that, between October 2016 and July 2017, Dr Strokowska made posts on social media which included photographs of and comments about animals being treated at the practices where she worked, without the consent of the owners or the practices. 

The third charge was that, between January 2017 and March 2017, Dr Strokowska made posts on social media which included photographs, videos and comments about animals being treated at Goddards Veterinary Hospital in Wanstead, without the consent of the treating and/or operating veterinary surgeon.

The fourth charge was that, between July 2017 and September 2017, Dr Strokowska made representations to the practice principal of Barn Lodge, in Lancashire, and/or a student vet working at the practice that she had gained consent for photographs and social media posts when she had not, and that her conduct was dishonest and misleading.

At the outset of the hearing, the Dr Strokowska admitted to having practised as a veterinary surgeon in the UK when she was registered as practising outside the UK, but disputed that she had been dishonest or misleading with regards to this.

She also admitted to the entirety of the second charge and part of the third, but, under the latter charge, denied that she had, without consent, taken a video of an animal being operated on by a veterinary colleague.

Finally, she admitted to dishonest and misleading conduct with regard to part of the fourth charge, but denied that, in July 2017, she informed the practice principal that she had been told that she would be allowed to take photographs at Barn Lodge and post these on social media, when she had not been so told.

The Disciplinary Committee went on to consider the facts of the case for each of the charges that remained in issue.

Having considered all of the evidence, the Committee accepted that she did not have her registration status with the RCVS in her mind while she was working in the UK during the period in question. Accordingly, the Committee did not find her to have been dishonest.

With regards to the third charge the Committee considered the issue of whether the video in question had been posted "without the consent of the treating and/or operating veterinary surgeon".  After examining the relevant evidence (which included the video in question) the Committee determined that the evidence did not support the facts charged and thus that charge three was not proved.

With regards to the fourth charge, Strokowska denied that her conduct in relation to informing the principal that she had been told that she would be allowed to take photographs and post these on social media was dishonest or misleading, on the basis that she believed she had permission to take and post photographs on social media. The Committee was not able to be sure as to how she sought this consent and the response provided and so the charge was found not proved.

The Committee then went on to consider whether the charges that were admitted amounted to serious professional misconduct. 

The Committee found that it was the respondent’s responsibility to ensure that her registration status was appropriate at the time she was doing locum work in the UK. However she had provided her RCVS registration number to all the practises she had worked for and in the view of the committee there was no intention to deceive anyone. In the judgement of the Committee, her conduct was not sufficiently grave so as to constitute serious professional misconduct.

The Committee, in its judgement, concluded that her conduct in relation to the second charge did fall far short of the behaviour to be expected of a member of the veterinary profession, and amounted to serious professional misconduct.

The Committee considered that all members of the profession are obliged to ensure that they comply with the provisions of the Code of Professional Conduct, and the supporting guidance, in relation to the use of the internet and social media.

Unauthorised posting of photographs of animals being treated by a veterinary surgeon on social media may well cause distress to the owners, and damage to the reputation of the profession as a whole, and to the reputation of individual practices.

The aspect of the third charge admitted by the respondent involved posting a photograph with accompanying text of a dog without the consent of the treating and/or operating veterinary surgeon. The Committee considered that this was, indeed, a matter of professional discourtesy, but did not consider that it amounted to serious professional misconduct.

The respondent admitted the fourth charge and admitted that her conduct was dishonest and misleading. The Committee, in its judgement, considered that by choosing to lie in response to a genuine professional enquiry about her conduct, her behaviour fell far short of that to be expected from a member of the veterinary profession, and constituted serious professional misconduct.

The Committee next considered what, if any, sanction to impose.

In mitigation the Committee considered that the postings were an attempt to promote the health and welfare of animals; the lack of risk of harm or actual harm to an animal or human; no apparent financial gain from her actions; her youth and inexperience at the time of the misconduct; her open and frank admissions at an early stage; her subsequent efforts to avoid repetition; the lapse of time since the incident; and her demonstration of insight into the effects of her postings on some owners.

The Committee considered the available sanctions in order starting with no further action. The Committee did not consider that this was appropriate where the serious professional misconduct found in this case involved dishonesty, even given the mitigating factors relating to that as outlined above, nor in view of the repeated nature of the social media posts without owner consent.

The Committee determined that a reprimand and warning as to future conduct was the appropriate sanction in the circumstances of this case.

Dr Strokowska was reprimanded for her serious professional misconduct in relation to her admitted failure to obtain necessary consent for posts on social media and her dishonesty in communication.

She was warned that she should in future be fully aware of, and comply with, the provisions of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance, in particular as it relates to the use of social media, including the need to ensure that she has obtained all the necessary consents from all relevant parties.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has issued a reprimand and warning to Essex-based Donald Stuart Bremner MRCVS, following a conviction of harassment and perverting the course of justice.

Dr Bremner was convicted in 2017 of harassing his ex-wife, and for perverting the course of justice by sending his daughter an e-mail, pressuring her to ask her mother to withdraw the charges against him. He pleaded guilty to both of the charges, saying he did not understand that it was a condition of his bail that he could not contact his ex-wife. He also expressed shame and remorse at his actions, explaining that his behaviour was triggered by extreme anger, grief and stress.

In relation to the charges, the Respondent was committed to prison for 12 months, suspended for 12 months, ordered to comply with a Rehabilitation Activity Requirement within 12 months, and ordered to pay £85 in costs and £115 as a surcharge to pay for victim services.

The Committee found the facts proved based on the certified copy of the certificate of conviction, as well as the Respondent’s admissions to the facts of the charges. It was satisfied that the Respondent brought the profession into disrepute by the seriousness of his convictions. In addition, the Committee regarded the Respondent as having deficient insight and a need to fully accept personal responsibility for his actions and their consequences. 

The Committee was also satisfied that the nature of the communications sent by the Respondent which led to the convictions and the breach of bail conditions, coupled with deficient insight amounted to serious professional misconduct and rendered him unfit to practise veterinary surgery.

The Committee considered various mitigating factors including the fact that no actual harm occurred to any animal, there were no concerns raised about the respondent’s practice, that he has a long and unblemished career, and that he showed some insight into his offences which continues to develop.

The Committee also took into account that preventing the Respondent from practicing could mean the loss of jobs for 33 or so employees, which weighed heavily on their decision. The Committee also agreed with the RCVS’s submissions that there was a very low likelihood of repetition of the offending behaviour. Aggravating factors included the emotional harm caused to the Respondent’s ex-wife, and that the harassment was a course of conduct sustained over a period of five months.

Therefore, when taking into account the particulars of this case, the Committee decided to impose a reprimand and warning on the basis that it would be proportionate to maintain public confidence in the profession in light of the serious nature of these charges. 

Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee was of the view that the conviction for intending to interfere with the course of justice was particularly serious, in light of the need to maintain public confidence in the profession, because it involved a disregard of proper criminal process.

"However, a particular feature of this case is the risk to the jobs of 33 or so employees if the Respondent were to be prevented from practising as a result of the Committee’s imposition of a sanction. It is this mitigating factor which weighed most heavily with the committee and they therefore concluded that both a Reprimand as to this conduct and a Warning as to any future conduct is sufficient and proportionate in this case to meet the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards."

Mr Bremner has 28 days in which to make an appeal about the Committee’s decision to the Privy Council.

Suffolk-based veterinary nurse Bronwyn Anne Nicholls has voluntarily agreed to remove herself from the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Register after she faced allegations relating to clinical failures and dishonesty.

74-year-old Ms Nicholls, who retired over two years ago, faced three charges against her regarding the surgical removal of a microchip from a cat in December 2021, the failure to disclose the procedure to her employer and associated accusations of dishonesty.

At the outset of the hearing Ms Nicholls made an application to adjourn the hearing while undertaking to voluntarily remove herself from the Register, to never seek to reapply to join the Register and to supply a witness statement in respect of a separate RCVS investigation into the conduct of a veterinary surgeon.

Her application was made on the basis of her age, the fact that she had a 40-year unblemished career in veterinary nursing, that she has retired, that she had referred herself to the College and engaged with the investigation process, that she had undertaken the procedure under the direction of a veterinary surgeon, that there was no financial gain and that the alleged misconduct related to a single animal.

The RCVS did not oppose the application.

Dr Kathryn Peaty MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee noted that the respondent has a long and unblemished career, also that she had self-referred and cooperated with the College and was prepared to act as a witness in other proceedings.

"However, it regarded those matters as going to the proper conduct of a professional and not of particular weight in the application.

“Although the Committee noted that the evidence tended to show that the respondent had acted at the direction of a veterinary surgeon, it considered that this did not outweigh the respondent’s own professional obligations in the relevant events.

"Further, this factor did not touch on the dishonesty allegation.

“The Committee did, in the respondent’s favour, place weight on the fact that this had been a singular event of clinical failing during the course of a long career.

"Further, the associated dishonesty the Committee assessed at being at the lower end of the scale, on the face of the College’s evidence.

"It considered that the expectation that veterinary nurses act with honesty in working with others was important, and so the lack of financial benefit did not have a great deal of impact, given the circumstances.\

“However, the Committee noted that the respondent had eventually corrected the understanding of her employer and admitted what she had done.

"Importantly, it was clear that the respondent had admitted her failings to the College in her subsequent dealings with the College.”

She added: “Taking all matters into consideration and in particular the singular nature of the clinical event and dishonesty at the low end of the scale, the Committee placed weight on the fact that removal of the respondent’s registration together with an undertaking to never re-apply exceeded the potential sanction which could be imposed, following any hearing.

"The Committee also brought into the balance the respondent’s own interests, in not continuing to be subject to the proceedings.

"The Committee also noted that the College did not oppose the application.

“The Committee considered that an informed member of the public, if aware of the full facts of the case and the application, would not be alarmed or concerned if the application is granted and public confidence in the profession would not be undermined.

"The Committee decided to accede to the application and accept the respondent’s undertakings.”

www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has published an updated set of standards that detail the professional values, knowledge, skills and behaviours that need to be met by those responsible for training student veterinary nurses.

The updated standards document applies to the awarding organisations and higher education institutions that set the veterinary nursing curricula, the centres (such as further education colleges) that deliver the courses, and the affiliated RCVS-approved training practices where SVNs undertake their placements.

The updated standards were approved by RCVS Veterinary Nurses (VN) Council in February 2021 after feedback from stakeholders.

There are six overarching standards within the framework, which also provide guidance on how the individual standards can be evidenced. The overarching standards are: learning culture; governance and quality; student empowerment; educators and assessors; curricula and assessment; and effective clinical learning.

The College says the new Standards Framework, which draws together all the previous separate guidance for awarding organisations, centres and training practices, allows greater flexibility for how training can be delivered.

Julie Dugmore, RCVS Director of Veterinary Nursing, said: “During 2020, accreditations and quality monitoring audits were conducted against the RCVS Standards Framework for Veterinary Nurse Education and Training. Feedback from all involved was positive but reflected a need for clarification in some areas and further examples to assist with evidencing compliance.

“Since February 2021, four accreditations have been conducted against the updated standards, the results of which demonstrate a positive move towards the outcomes based approach to accreditation and quality monitoring.”

The full set of standards can be read online at www.rcvs.org.uk/standards-framework-vn.