The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed the Registrar to remove Luton-based veterinary surgeon, Rahul Chandulai Shah from the Register for repeated clinical failures.

The Disciplinary Committee, chaired by Dr Martin Whiting, considered two charges against Mr Shah.

The first charge alleged that in June 2018 Mr Shah allowed a kitten to be anaesthetised for a castration without having first undertaken a clinical examination.

Then, having failed to locate a second testicle during the surgery, it was alleged that Mr Shah failed to contact the owner to inform her of this failure and to discuss the treatment options arising as a result, before ending his attempts at the castration.

The charge then alleged that Mr Shah failed to devise an adequate plan for the completion of the castration, failed to take adequate steps to ensure that the owner was fully informed of the details of the surgery, and failed to make adequate clinical notes in relation to the kitten.

The second charge alleged that, in relation to the conduct in charge one, Mr Shah failed to have adequate regard to previous advice and warnings from the RCVS about his conduct in relation to neutering surgery and related clinical note-keeping and communication with clients.

In particular, this related to a reprimand issued in September 2016 by the Disciplinary Committee following its finding of disgraceful conduct with regards to his discharge of a dog following castration in 2014, and advice issued to Mr Shah by letter of 21 March 2018 by the College’s Preliminary Investigation Committee with regards to circumstances surrounding canine spay surgery performed by him in 2016.

At the outset of the hearing Mr Shah denied all of the charges. 

Nevertheless, the Committee found the following charge one sub-charges proved: that Mr Shah allowed the kitten to be anaesthetised without having first undertaken a clinical examination of the kitten and/or ensuring that they had undergone a clinical examination by another veterinary surgeon; that Mr Shah failed to devise an adequate plan for the completion of the castration, that he failed to take adequate steps to ensure that the owner was fully informed post-operatively of the details of the said surgery; and that he failed to make adequate clinical notes in relation to the findings of his examination under anaesthesia, his surgical approach, post-operative communication with the owners and his plan for completion of the castration.

The Committee also found all of charge two proved.

The Committee then went on to consider whether or not, in relation to the proved charges, Mr Shah’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In considering the aggravating factors, the Committee took into account the risk of injury to an animal, the contravention of previous advice given by the College, lack of insight, and the previous adverse findings of the Disciplinary Committee and the Preliminary Investigation Committee.

With regards to mitigating factors, the Committee accepted that the conduct was not premeditated, that there was no financial gain and that, notwithstanding the contents of charge two, the first charge was a single and isolated incident.

Considering both the aggravating and mitigating factors, the Committee was satisfied that Mr Shah’s conduct fell far below the standard expected of a registered veterinary surgeon and consequently that it amounted to serious professional misconduct.

The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Mr Shah. The Committee first considered lesser sanctions, including postponement with undertakings and a reprimand and warning. Neither would be sufficient to protect animals and the wider public interest and uphold proper standards because Mr Shah had already been given a reprimand and warning in 2016, which appeared, to the Committee, to have had no effect.

Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Dr Whiting said: "It is clear to the Committee that in this case, the respondent has failed to demonstrate any insight into the seriousness of his misconduct.

"In this case, the Committee considers that there is evidence of a harmful deep-seated personal attitude problem so far as the respondent is concerned. His pervasive denial of wrongdoing and lack of insight, in spite of the findings of this Committee, is of grave concern.

"The respondent’s persistent abdication of personal responsibility and accountability for anything that went wrong, coupled with his sustained blaming of the nursing staff with whom he worked, displays an attitude which is fundamentally incompatible with being a member of the veterinary profession.

"The Committee cannot be confident that there is no significant risk of repeat behaviour in the event that suspension was found to be the appropriate sanction and that the respondent is fit to practise after any period of suspension. 

"This is particularly due to the fact that Mr Shah has failed to have adequate regard to previous advice and warnings from the RCVS, coupled with multiple previous adverse findings of the Disciplinary Committee and the Preliminary Investigation Committee. The Committee has reached this conclusion having regard to the seriousness of its findings in this hearing, and the previous advice and warning given to the respondent, none of which appears to have been recognised or heeded."

The Committee therefore concluded that the only sanction which reflects the seriousness of this case, in the light of the previous findings and advice given to the Mr Shah by the College, is to remove him from the Register.

The Committee’s full facts and findings can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded and given a warning to Dr John Gunn MRCVS, a Manchester-based veterinary surgeon for providing an inadequate level of care and advice regarding a Jack Russell terrier.

The Disciplinary Committee, chaired by Mr Stuart Drummond, considered six charges against Dr Gunn.

The first charge alleged that, early in 2018, Dr Gunn failed to provide appropriate and adequate care to the dog. In particular, having removed a mass from the right thorax, he undertook an excess number of surgical procedures, including under general anaesthetic, within a 13 day period; performed these procedures without offering alternative treatments or discussing referral with the owners; failed to recognise infected wounds; and administered an antibiotic when the dog was infected with MRSA and E-coli.

The second charge alleged that Dr Gunn failed to communicate adequately, openly and honestly with the owners of the terrier on multiple occasions between 16 January and 3 February 2018. This included but was not limited to: failing to provide the owners with an estimation of fees; failing to inform them in advance of the procedures performed; failing to inform them of options for treatment; and failing to inform them that the terrier had an infection when he knew or ought to have known that she did.

The third charge alleged that Dr Gunn failed to obtain informed consent in relation to the further procedures performed on the terrier in charge one.

The fourth charge alleged that Dr Gunn failed to maintain adequate clinical records in relation to the management of the dog, and that he failed to record the prescription and administration of drugs to treat the terrier.

The fifth charge alleged that Dr Gunn indicated to the owners that euthanasia was the most appropriate treatment option and/or that there were no other realistic treatment options, when this was not the case and when he ought to have known this was not the case.

The sixth charge alleged that, during the course of a referral of the terrier to another practice, Dr Gunn failed to provide an adequate history of his management of the dog and that he informed the practice that the owners had no finances when this was not true, amounting to an incomplete account of his dealings with the owners and to a breach of their confidence.

At the outset of the hearing the respondent admitted to a number of the allegations within the main six charges, which were found proved by the Committee.

Of the charges not admitted to, a number were found proved and the Committee then went on to consider whether or not Dr Gunn’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct. 

In considering the aggravating factors, the Committee took into account that the dog’s suffering was prolonged because of the persistence of Dr Gunn in pursuing a single ineffective treatment approach.

With regards to mitigating factors, the Committee found that Dr Gunn was remorseful as to his actions, that there was no financial motivation on the part of Dr Gunn in respect of his treatment of the terrier, and that there is a low risk of repetition because Dr Gunn has sought to learn from this experience. A number of relevant and high-quality testimonials were also provided by colleagues and many satisfied owners on behalf of Dr Gunn.

Considering both the aggravating and mitigating factors, the Committee was satisfied that Dr Gunn’s conduct fell far below the standard expected of a registered veterinary surgeon for a number of the charges.

The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Dr Gunn. The Committee was satisfied that the misconduct found proved was in relation to the treatment of one dog only and therefore it was at the lower end of the spectrum. However, the conduct took place over a prolonged period of two weeks which in the Committee’s view required a sanction. In such circumstances, and with the significant mitigation, the Committee decided that the appropriate and proportionate sanction was to reprimand Dr Gunn and to warn him about his future conduct.

Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Mr Stuart Drummond said: "The Committee concluded that the effect of a reprimand alongside the Committee’s findings on disgraceful conduct in a professional respect was a sufficient and proportionate sanction. The Committee found Dr Gunn to have developed sufficient insight into his failings and it was satisfied that the disciplinary process had been a salutary experience and that he is very unlikely to pose a risk to animals in the future or to contravene professional standards.

"The Committee decided that a warning as to future conduct was necessary to reduce the risk of any repetition of any similar conduct for Dr Gunn in the future. It therefore concluded that the sanction of a reprimand and warning would be a sufficient in the circumstances of this case having taking into consideration all the powerful personal mitigation."

The complete list of charges and the Committee’s full facts and findings can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

The RCVS is to hold three webinars looking at the issues around recognising the value of veterinary nurses' work, including maximising the potential of veterinary nurses and leadership opportunities within the profession.

Part of the VN Futures project, the lunchtime webinars will be delivered between February and June 2020 via the Webinar Vet, and the College is encouraging all nurses, veterinary surgeons, practice managers and owners to attend, as it says the webinars will benefit the whole practice team.

All three webinars take place at 12.30pm and last one hour. They are as follows: 

• Tuesday 4 February 2020 – ‘Maximising the potential of the veterinary nurse’ presented by Louise Northway RVN, BVNA Council member and recipient of the RCVS Inspiration Award. The webinar will give an overview of the role of veterinary nurses under Schedule 3 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, how VNs can develop their role in practice and take on extra responsibilities and how VNs can approach these conversations in practice through the creation of learning and development plans. This webinar will illustrate how fully utilising the nursing team not only hugely boosts the morale of the work force, but also enhances patient care and increases the efficiency of the business. 

• Tuesday 10 March 2020 – ‘Veterinary nurses’ time is valuable: How and why to charge for it’ presented by Stephanie Writer-Davies MRCVS, Career Progression Working Group member, and Jane Davidson RVN, VN Council member and regular blogger on veterinary nursing issues. This webinar will provide examples and case studies of how veterinary nurses contribute to practice finances, how practice pricing structures can be developed so that the financial value of veterinary nurses’ time and effort can be better highlighted, and how veterinary nurses can demonstrate their value to clients.

• Tuesday 23 June 2020 – ‘Lead or Head RVN: What’s in a name?’ presented by Gillian Page RVN, President of the Veterinary Management Group. This webinar will look at the role of the traditional Head RVN and how development of ‘Lead RVNs’ in different areas of practice can help to allow for growth of other talented team members and provide increased and shared responsibility and progression. This webinar will explore how this enhances practice efficiency alongside development of team members, thus increasing job satisfaction and, ultimately, retention.

Racheal Marshall, Chair of RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council and the VN Futures Board, said: "We hope that veterinary nurses will engage with these webinars in order to gain some inspiration about how they can truly show their value to their team, their clients and the wider public.

"The VN Futures research clearly demonstrated that there was a desire from the veterinary nursing profession to find ways in which VNs could gain greater recognition for the work they do and progress in their careers. These webinars, and our talented presenters, will provide many practical examples and case studies on how this can be done, help build confidence and highlight opportunities for further learning and development."

To sign up to the free webinars visit https://www.thewebinarvet.com/sponsors/VN%20Futures.  

A survey commissioned by the RCVS has found that a significant number of pet owners think veterinary surgeons offer poor or very poor value for money, suggesting more work needs to be done to communicate the value of veterinary services.

The survey was conducted by Mo Gannon & Associates, which asked 2,000 UK adults about their satisfaction with the service they and their animals received from veterinary surgeons, levels of trust in the profession, and whether the service provided by vets represents value for money.

32% of the respondents felt that veterinary surgeons represented excellent (8%) or good (24%) value for money. 38% thought that veterinary fees are fair. However, 29% thought that veterinary surgeons and their services provided poor (21%) or very poor (8%) value for money. The results were very similar to the last time the survey was conducted, in 2015.

Nevertheless, veterinary surgeons continue to enjoy very high levels of trust amongst the public. 94% said they either completely trust (34%) or generally trust (60%) vets. This put veterinary surgeons in third place amongst the most trusted professions, below opticians and pharmacists but above GPs and and dentists. 

Satisfaction with the profession was also high. 80% said they were either very satisfied (39%) or satisfied (41%), putting vets in fourth place below opticians, pharmacists and dentists, but above general practitioners and accountants.

RCVS President Dr Niall Connell, pictured right (would you trust this man?) said: "These results clearly demonstrate that there is a great deal of good will towards the veterinary profession and the work they do in treating the nation’s animals and serving their communities. The basis of all good relationships is trust, and it is fantastic to see that our clients continue overwhelmingly to trust our knowledge and expertise and remain very happy with the service we provide them.

"The picture on value for money is clearly a bit more mixed, although clearly 70% of the respondents recognise that we at least charge fair fees in terms of our time and expertise. There is, of course, always more work that we can do in order to help the public understand veterinary costs and fees and promote the value of veterinary care, as demonstrated by last year’s joint Pets Need Vets social media campaign with BVA, in which we highlighted the benefits to pet owners of being registered with a vet."

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded one veterinary surgeon and suspended another for four months, following a joint hearing regarding their professional conduct while they were in practice in Slough, Berkshire in August 2016.

The Disciplinary Committee considered a number of charges against Javier Salas Navarro MRCVS and Roman Kristin over 35 days.

The charges against Dr Navarro concerned his treatment of a kitten named Marnie. They included: 

• In August 2016, failing to read the anaesthesia consent form in relation to a surgical spay he performed;

• When Marnie was readmitted for surgery, failing to read the anaesthesia consent form, failing to undertake adequate assessment of Marnie’s condition; performing surgery without adequately considering her condition; subjecting Marnie to anaesthesia without recognising the seriousness of her illness; failing to obtain informed consent from the owners; administering medication which was contra-indicated; and failure to make an adequate record of his involvement in Marnie’s care.

The charges against Dr Kristin also related to his treatment of Marnie. They included:  

• In August 2016, failing to undertake an adequate assessment of her condition; failure to recognise and record the fact that Marnie could not pass urine; failure to refer or offer her for specialist treatment; and failure to ensure Marnie received care and treatment overnight. 

• When admitting Marnie for surgery, that he made a number of clinical mistakes including failure to gain informed consent; and failure to recognise the seriousness of her illness;

• that there were a number of failings in relation to Marnie’s care, including failure to arrange adequate overnight care, failure to monitor and record her condition, and failure to gain informed consent for the overnight care.

• that he failed to advise Marnie’s owners that he suspected her uterers had been ligated during the spay, failed to advise Marnie’s owners that she required specialist veterinary treatment; and advised that Marnie undergo further surgery at the practice in spite of this meaning her having to undergo further anaesthesia in a week and with poor chances of survival;

• that the above conduct was misleading and dishonest.

The Disciplinary Committee found a number of the facts in the charges against both Dr Navarro and Dr Kristin proven (the full details can be found in the documentation at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary). 

The Committee found that Dr Navarro breached a number of aspects of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons including: making animal health and welfare the first consideration when attending to animals; the provision of appropriate and adequate veterinary care; responsible prescription, supply and administration of medicines; communication with professional colleagues to ensure the health and welfare of the animal; being open and honest with clients and respecting their needs and requirements; effective communication with clients; keeping clear and accurate clinical records; and working with the veterinary team to coordinate the care of animals. 

Of the proven charges, the Committee found that his initial failure to read Marnie’s anaesthesia consent form on 5 August did not amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, but that the repetition of this failure on 9 August did amount to disgraceful conduct. It also found that Dr Navarro’s failure to undertake adequate assessment and perform surgery without this assessment amounted to serious professional misconduct. Furthermore, the Committee found that subjecting Marnie to anaesthesia in spite of her being unwell, failure to obtain informed consent and failure to keep adequate records also amounted to serious professional misconduct. 

For Dr Kristin, in summary, the Committee found not proven the allegation that he had failed to respond on 5 August 2016 to concerns from Marnie’s owners about her condition while she was recovering from a surgical spay and also all the allegations relating to Dr Kristin’s admission of Marnie to the practice on 9 August on the basis that it was not satisfied so as to be sure that Dr Kristin had been the veterinary surgeon who admitted Marnie on that day. 

The Committee found proven the remaining charges and found he breached the following parts of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons: making animal health and welfare the first consideration when attending to animals; keeping within area of competence and referring responsibly; providing appropriate and adequate veterinary care; responsible prescribing, supply and administration of medicines; communication with colleagues to ensure the health and welfare of the animal; being open and honest with clients and respecting their needs and requirements; communicating effectively with clients and obtaining informed consent; keeping clear and accurate clinical records; and working with the veterinary team to coordinate the care of animals.

Of the proven charges, the Committee determined that his failure to adequately assess Marnie’s health, to obtain a clinical history, to undertake blood tests and recognise that she was seriously ill, amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect and led to “Marnie’s underlying condition going undetected and undoubtedly contributed to her eventual death two days later”. 

The Committee also found that Dr Kristin’s decision to hospitalise Marnie without adequate overnight care, place her on IV fluids without monitoring the treatment or her condition, and failure to obtain adequate informed consent – among other things – amounted disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "As a direct result of Dr Kristin’s acts and omissions, Marnie was left alone overnight on fluids when those fluids had nowhere to go. Had he done his job properly he would have known that and Marnie could have avoided the prolonged suffering caused by the chosen course of treatment that did not address the underlying condition. Every element of Dr Kristin’s behaviour was catastrophic for Marnie, and yet he took no personal responsibility for her welfare and just went home.” 

Following its findings on disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, the Committee then went on to consider its sanction for both Dr Navarro and Dr Kristin.

In respect of Dr Navarro, the Committee considered the mitigating factors including previous good character, admissions to some of the facts of the case from the outset; genuine insight and remorse into the seriousness of the actions; his youth and inexperience; and relevant and good-quality testimonials from colleagues. The Committee noted that the testimonials were universally positive and demonstrated that Dr Navarro had reflected on his conduct, had become more mature and confident in his practice and made efforts to rectify the areas in which he had fallen below standards. 

Stuart Drummond said: “Although the consequences for Marnie and her owners were clearly devastating, the Committee considered that Dr Navarro’s part in her demise has to be seen in the context of all the evidence. In light of the extensive mitigation, including significant evidence of insight and remediation, the Committee was able to conclude that Dr Navarro did not represent a future risk to animals or the public. In such circumstances, the Committee considered that it was not necessary to restrict Dr Navarro’s registration and that a reprimand was the appropriate and proportionate sanction in his case.”

In relation to Dr Kristin, the Committee took into account positive character evidence from Mr Karel Daniel, a semi-retired veterinary surgeon and Vice-President of the Czech Republic Veterinary Chamber, a similar body to the RCVS in that country, as well as other testimonials on his behalf. In mitigation, the Committee considered Dr Kristin’s previously unblemished career, the fact that it was a single case involving a single animal; some development of insight into his conduct; no evidence of repetition; expressions of remorse; the impact of a family bereavement during the course of proceedings; and his financial position.

However, the Committee also took into account aggravating factors including a lack of candour from Dr Kristin when he was giving evidence, demonstrated by a tendency to blame others rather than take responsibility, as well as his recklessness in suggesting a third operation on Marnie that was not in her interests, rather than referring her into specialist care.

The final decision of the Committee on the sanction for Dr Kristin was that, given the seriousness of the misconduct, it was satisfied that this warranted a six-month suspension period. However, given the mitigating factors, the Committee decided that four months was appropriate and proportionate. 

Commenting on the sanction Stuart Drummond said: “The Committee determined that it was important a clear message be sent that this sort of behaviour is wholly inappropriate and not to be tolerated. It brings discredit upon the respondent and discredit upon the profession and, most importantly, caused harm to Marnie and great distress to her owners.

"The Committee did consider whether to remove Dr Kristin from the Register. However, in light of the mitigation in this case, the fact that this was a single case in an otherwise unblemished career, together with the unlikelihood he would repeat his disgraceful conduct, the Committee decided that, in all the circumstances, to remove him from the Register would be disproportionate.

"The Committee therefore decided to order that the Registrar suspend Dr Kristin’s registration…. The Committee was satisfied that a period of four months was appropriate and proportionate in all the circumstances."

The full facts and findings from the case can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary 

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded a veterinary surgeon who'd fallen victim to a corrupt system and consequently bribed a professor at the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Agronomic Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Bucharest.

Andreea Maria Bacaintan was convicted by the Bucharest Court of Law in October 2017 of bribing a professor during her final year at university in order to pass an examination, a charge to which she had pleaded guilty. 

Miss Bacaintan was fined and sentenced to a period of one year and four months' imprisonment, suspended for two years, with requirements for supervision and unpaid community service work. The case against Miss Bacaintan was that this conviction renders her unfit to practise veterinary surgery.

However, the Committee also heard and accepted that Miss Bacaintan had been the victim of a dishonest scheme perpetrated by members of staff at the University to extort money from students before they would let them pass the exam.

At the outset of the hearing the respondent admitted the facts as contained in the charge and that her conviction rendered her unfit to practise veterinary surgery. However, notwithstanding Miss Bacaintan’s acceptance that she was unfit, the issue of whether or not she was fit to practice remained one for the Committee’s judgement.

The Committee considered whether or not Miss Bacaintan’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct. In coming to its decision, the Committee took into account the submissions it had heard from Nicole Curtis, acting for the College, and from Miss Bacaintan, who represented herself.

Ms Curtis submitted that the nature and circumstances of the offence, which involved an element of dishonesty and which led to the conviction, were such as to render Miss Bacaintan unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon in the UK. Miss Bacaintan’s conduct was also liable to have a seriously detrimental effect on the reputation of the profession, as it undermined the examination system.

The Committee also considered the mitigating factors associated with the conviction, namely that this was a single, isolated incident and that Miss Bacaintan was clearly the victim of a dishonest scheme perpetrated by staff at the University.

Considering both the aggravating and mitigating factors, the Committee was satisfied that Miss Bacaintan’s conduct fell far below the standard expected of a Registered Veterinary Surgeon.

The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Miss Bacaintan. In doing so it took into account some of the written testimonials submitted on her behalf. The Committee was satisfied that Miss Bacaintan understood the magnitude of what she had done and was highly unlikely to repeat her dishonest behaviour.

Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Ian Green said: "This was a truly exceptional case where, whilst she had been dishonest, which the Committee in no way condoned, she had felt compelled to act in this way. The Committee was persuaded that Miss Bacaintan had herself been the victim of a corrupt system and had acted out of desperation in the final stages of her degree and with the genuine fear that if she did not “play the game” she would not graduate, thereby throwing away six years of hard work.

"It was notable that she did not succumb to the corrupt scheme until the third time of trying to pass this exam. It was clear from the evidence that she was not alone in paying up to try and pass this exam and that at least 30 and possibly many more students had done the same thing."

In such circumstances and with the significant mitigation, the Committee decided that the appropriate and proportionate sanction was to reprimand Miss Bacaintan and to warn her about her future conduct.

Based on the reported facts, what I'd like to know is why the DC even reprimanded a veterinary surgeon who was clearly being extorted herself, and what action was taken against the University staff?

The Committee’s full facts and findings can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

The RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council has approved a new standards framework for veterinary nurse education which it says will allow for greater flexibility and innovation in how courses are delivered and a greater focus on student empowerment.

The new standards framework sets out the professional values, knowledge, skills and behaviours that are required of awarding organisations and higher education (HE) institutions that provide the curricula, the centres that deliver the courses and their affiliated training practices, as part of the College’s accreditation and re-accreditation processes.

The new framework focuses on six main standards, which apply to awarding organisations/HE institutions, the centres and training practices. The standards are: learning culture; governance and quality; student empowerment; educators and assessors; curricula and assessment; and effective clinical learning.

Julie Dugmore, RCVS Director of Veterinary Nursing, said: "In our previous set of standards there were separate policies and documents for training practices, the centres and the awarding organisations/HE institutions. This now brings all those disparate policies into a unified whole.

"The new standards also place a greater focus on innovation and different types of learning. The previous standards very much assumed that the learning would be done on a face-to-face basis, but we know that, increasingly, student veterinary nurses may be getting the majority of the contact time with their educational institution online and that many institutions have brought in blended learning programmes. These standards recognise this fact and that there are many different ways to learn.

"A greater focus on the student experience is another thing that has really been bolstered in these new standards. For example, we would now be looking for evidence that educational institutions and training practices are providing the support needed for student veterinary nurses to look after their mental health and wellbeing, and that academic and pastoral support is provided to prepare them for independent, reflective practice.

"The new standard will be formally brought into force in January - although for those institutions and organisations that are currently going through the accreditation or re-accreditation process, they can opt to still be assessed via the previous set of standards."

The new standards were drawn-up by a working group comprising VN Council members Alison Carr, Andrea Jefferies and Kathy Kissick, as well as Julie Dugmore.

Veterinary nursing educators were invited to a consultation day in July when they were introduced to the new standards and invited to give feedback.

Kathy Kissick said: "As a former Head of Veterinary Nursing at Myerscough College, I am very glad that we have finally been able to realise and build in the importance of student empowerment into these standards – recognising that veterinary nursing education and training is not just something being done for our students, but something they have a voice and role in shaping.

"Allowing greater choice in the methods and means by which veterinary nursing education is delivered is also a passion of mine and, again, this is something these new standards fully recognise and allow for."

A handbook containing the new accreditation standards will be published on the RCVS website in due course. In the meantime, the documentation is available to download at: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/who-we-are/vn-council/vn-council-meetings/13-november-2019/ 

One of this year’s recipients of the RCVS Impact Award, Professor Sarah Freeman, will be talking about her pioneering public awareness project on equine colic at an upcoming Regional Question Time in Nottingham on 25th November 2019.

Sarah is a Professor of Veterinary Surgery at the University of Nottingham’s School of Veterinary Medicine & Science, and leads the Nottingham Equine Colic Project, which works with organisations such as the British Horse Society to raise awareness of the condition.

Sarah's talk, 'Generating an evidence-based educational campaign on colic', will discuss new evidence from the project, and how it led to the REACT colic campaign. She will also be sharing experiences of how the campaign has worked and asking whether we can change people's attitudes and behaviours.

The evening starts at 6.15pm with food and refreshments with Sarah's talk starting at 7pm, after which there will be an update on the College’s latest projects and initiatives. That'll be followed by a question and answer session with senior officers and staff from the RCVS - including RCVS President Dr Niall Connell, and Chair of RCVS Veterinary Nurses (VN) Council Racheal Marshall.

Dr Connell said: "Thank you to Professor Freeman for agreeing to speak about the colic project which, through its Colic Awareness Week, is helping to raise knowledge of the early signs of colic amongst horse owners, allowing them to get their horses treated in good time and saving their lives.

"I also look forward to talking to members of the profession about some of the issues currently on their minds – the evening is very much led by what those who attend want to discuss – from mental health, to our under care review, to the Practice Standards Scheme. Attending the event can also count to up to three hours towards your continuing professional development (CPD) requirement."

The event is open to all members of the practice team including veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses, practice managers and others. The event is free and places can be booked via the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/nottingham. 

In the afternoon before the event, between 12 noon and 5pm, the College will also be holding a series of free 45-minute Practice Standards Scheme (PSS) surgeries with PSS Lead Assessor Pam Mosedale. 

The surgeries are open to both RCVS-accredited practices and those considering joining the Scheme and allows delegates to discuss the assessment process, how to apply for awards, how to meet particular requirements and any other questions they may have about the PSS. 

Places at the surgeries are limited and will be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis. They can be booked at: www.rcvs.org.uk/PSSsurgeries

Speaking at last week's RCVS Veterinary Nurses Day, Rachael Marshall, Chair of Veterinary Nurses Council highlighted advances in the veterinary nursing profession and urged nurses to find ways of taking the lead in their career.

Veterinary Nurses Day was held at London Zoo to welcome new members of the profession, award Diplomas and celebrate the achievements of one of its longest-serving members.

During the ceremony, Rachael Marshall, Chair of Veterinary Nurses Council, led the newly registered nurses through their professional declarations while the President of the RCVS, Dr Niall Connell presented each new veterinary nurse a scroll containing the text of their declarations.

Before leading the declarations, Racheal said: "I would encourage you all to take control of your career and find areas where you can take the lead, whether this be within your practice or by contributing to the wider profession.

"Sticking your head above the parapet can be scary and often daunting, however, the satisfaction of challenging yourself and achieving things outside of your comfort zone is all the more rewarding.

"Remember this is a career for life. However you choose to use your qualification always be rightly proud to stand tall and say ‘I am a veterinary nurse’."

The College hosted two separate ceremonies, one in the morning and afternoon, and around 175 new veterinary nurses collected their scrolls, as well as nine RVNs who had achieved their DipAVNs. Also being recognised at the event with a lifetime achievement award was Deborah Holland who qualified as a ‘registered animal nursing auxiliary’ (or RANA) in 1981 and has seen first-hand how the profession has changed and adapted over the last 40 years.

Racheal added: “It was not until 1984 that a change in the law allowed the use of the title of veterinary nurse, and a further 30 years until a new Royal Charter in 2015 formally granted the status of associates of the RCVS, making veterinary nursing a regulated profession in its own right. Last year a change in the governance of the RCVS Council has allowed two veterinary nurses to become members of Council, which further demonstrates the solid recognition of the importance of the VN role, which this day aims to highlight and celebrate.”

In his closing speech for both sessions, RCVS President Niall Connell spoke of the challenges of veterinary work and the importance of reaching out to your peers and colleagues in times of need.

Niall said: “Talk to colleagues, talk to friends and support each other. More than ever our veterinary professions are closer together so you should never feel you are alone. If you need advice, seek it. There are so many people you can ask, colleagues, your associations and you will always be welcome to call the College for advice on professional conduct, CPD and other issues.”

The RCVS has announced two changes to its CPD policy as it switches from the rolling three year requirement to the annual one, starting in 2020.

The first is that the College will allow veterinary surgeons and nurses to carry over some of the CPD hours they have accrued in 2019 into 2020, to smoothen the transition to an annual hourly requirement.

Vets will be allowed to carry over 25 hours and VNs 10 hours of accumulated CPD from 2019 through to 2020.

This will apply once, in 2020 only, and is only applicable to vets and VNs who have been CPD-compliant from 2017 to 2019 and have a surplus number of hours to carry over.

Secondly, the College is going to allow vets and VNs to take a six-month 'CPD pause' for planned periods away from work, such as parental leave, and exceptional circumstances, such as serious ill health or unforeseen changes to family responsibilities, without the need to make up the hours when they return to work. This will reduce the burden on vets and VNs returning to work after a break.

RCVS Director of Education, Dr Linda Prescott-Clements said: "We hope that these changes to the CPD policy will support vets and VNs to make the transition to an annual hourly requirement.

"We received a sample of feedback from some members of the veterinary professions regarding the move to annual hourly CPD requirements and these additions have been introduced support members during this transition and to mitigate some of the concerns raised."

For more information about the CPD requirement for both vets and vet nurses, what activities might count as CPD, how to record your CPD and a series of frequently asked questions about CPD please visit our dedicated page: www.rcvs.org.uk/cpd.

The RCVS is now accepting nominations for its 2020 Honours & Awards, celebrating the achievements of veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and laypeople who are doing extraordinary work for the benefit of animal health and welfare, the veterinary professions and public health.

The College is seeking nominations this year for all six of its awards, all of which will be presented to the successful nominees at Royal College Day 2020, which will take place at 1 Great George Street in July 2020. These awards are:

• The Queen’s Medal: the highest honour that can be bestowed upon a veterinary surgeon for a highly distinguished career with sustained and outstanding achievements throughout.

• The Veterinary Nursing Golden Jubilee Award: for veterinary nurses who have had a sustained and distinguished career, who can demonstrate a leadership role within the profession and who can act as an ambassador for the value of veterinary nurses and their work.

• RCVS International Award: for vets, vet nurses or laypeople who work internationally in making an outstanding contribution to, for example, raising veterinary standards, veterinary education and improving animal health and welfare.

• RCVS Impact Award: for vets or vet nurses who have undertaken a project or initiative that has a significant impact on the profession at large, animal health or welfare, or public health. Such impact could have been made through any field of veterinary endeavour, including clinical practice, research, education or veterinary politics.

• RCVS Inspiration Award: for vets or vet nurses at any stage of their career who have demonstrated the ability to inspire and enthuse others consistently throughout. It is open to those who have inspired and motivated individuals anywhere within the profession and recognises those who have gone ‘above and beyond’ what may normally be expected from a professional colleague.

• Honorary Associateship: conferred on a small number of laypeople each year, in recognition of their special contribution to the veterinary sphere. It recognises the full range of individuals who contribute to the veterinary and animal health sector including scientists, lecturers, journalists, charity-workers, farriers, farmers and those involved in the commercial field.

Niall Connell, RCVS President for 2019-20, said: "2019 was particularly fruitful in terms of the number of nominations that we received for some of these awards, including the Queen’s Medal and the Impact and Inspiration Awards. In fact, those of us who had to compile the shortlist really struggled because of the sheer quality of the nominations we received and the people who were nominated.

"We hope that this will be repeated this year, and I would ask the profession to give some extra thought to making a nomination for Honorary Associateship, an award which is conferred on laypeople who are going above-and-beyond for animal welfare and the veterinary professions.

"In my veterinary career I have met many of these people: the biochemistry lecturers at vet school who gave me a passion for the science behind clinical veterinary medicine; the receptionists who were experts at talking to clients with empathy and kindness, often during distressing situations; and the volunteers who give up their precious free time to help with the smooth running of our PDSA hospital.

"I would urge everyone to have a think about who might be suitable for any of these awards, to find out more about making a nomination on the RCVS website."

To make a nomination, visit www.rcvs.org.uk/honours and click on the link for the specific award.

Applications can be made either through an online application form or by downloading a PDF application form and emailing or posting it to the RCVS.

The deadline for nominations is Friday 10 January 2020. 

For an informal talk about the awards and how to make a nomination you can contact Susie Tomlin, Executive Secretary, on s.tomlin@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0761.

Photo: Dr Abdul-Jalil Mohammadzai, one of the recipients of the 2019 RCVS International Award, with the then RCVS President Amanda Boag

York-based Dr Michael Richard Jones has been suspended by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for two months, for making dishonest entries in horse passports and subsequently making dishonest entries in the same horses’ clinical records.

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.