Leeds-based Gary James Cassius Samuel has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee following his conviction for animal welfare offences in 2016.

The Disciplinary Committee heard that Mr Samuel had been convicted of five animal welfare offences at Leeds Magistrates' Court in January 2016. The charges related to causing unnecessary suffering to a number of animals including twelve dogs and four cats, and failing to take steps to ensure that the needs of the animals for which he was responsible were met. The animals were kept at the Armley Veterinary Practice, for which Mr Samuel was, at the time, practice principal.

Mr Samuel was sentenced to 12 weeks' imprisonment suspended for 12 months on the condition he completed 150 hours' unpaid work and paid a fine of £100. He was also ordered to pay costs of £500 and a victim surcharge of £80. He was also made subject to a disqualification order for three years.

Dr Samuel subsequently appealed against his conviction in April 2018. His appeal was dismissed in respect of five of the charges but was upheld in respect of one charge, which, as a result, did not form part of the College’s case.

Dr Samuel declined to attend the hearing in person and was not represented before the Disciplinary Committee. In considering the facts of the charges against Dr Samuel the Committee found them proven.

The Committee then went on to consider whether the proven charges, both individually and cumulatively, rendered Dr Samuel unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.

The College’s case was that the convictions concerned animal welfare and therefore went to the heart of his practice as a vet, that Dr Samuel behaved in a manner incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon, that he failed in his core responsibility as a veterinary surgeon to protect and act in the best interests of animal welfare, and that he maintained he had no responsibility for the animals on his practice premises – an assertion referred to as ‘an extraordinary position for a veterinary surgeon to take’. 

Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "ust as the judgment of the Crown Court and the Magistrates Court had found, the Committee also found that Dr Samuel must have known that the animals were in distress and were in a neglected state. The Committee was sure that Dr Samuel must have been aware of the animals notwithstanding his continued denial. The Committee concluded that Dr Samuel was unfit to practise because of the facts underlying the convictions. Dr Samuel had an overriding duty of care for the animals and to take action in relation to their health and welfare because they were living under the roof of his veterinary practice."

In considering its sanction against Dr Samuel, the Committee concluded that removal from the Register was the most appropriate option. It took into account the fact that the animals were found starving in a cellar without water, that Dr Samuel had not demonstrated insight into the serious nature of his offences, that he continued to deny responsibility and, furthermore, found no evidence that he no longer posed a risk to animals in the future. 

Ian Green added: "The Committee decided that the behaviour found proved was fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon because in this case there had been a serious departure from standards as set out in the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons…. Furthermore, there had been serious harm caused to a number of animals and a risk of harm to a number of other animals."

Dr Samuel has 28 days from being informed of the Disciplinary Committee’s decision in which to make an appeal to the Privy Council.

The Committee’s full decision and findings can be found here

The RCVS has announced that next month, it will be asking veterinary surgeons and nurses for their view on a proposed new framework for post-registration veterinary nursing qualifications which aim to enhance the structure of the veterinary nursing career and introduce an Advanced Veterinary Nurse status.

The proposed framework has grown out of the VN Futures research project, run jointly with the BVNA, which identified developing a structured and rewarding career path for veterinary nurses as one of the key demands of the profession.

It has been developed by the VN Futures Post-Registration Development Group in conjunction with the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Education Committee and Veterinary Nurses Council.

The College says the proposed framework is designed to provide accessible, flexible and professionally relevant post-registration awards for veterinary nurses in order to provide an enhanced level of veterinary nursing practice, while also providing specific modules that veterinary nurses at all career levels can study independently for their continuing professional development (CPD).

Julie Dugmore, Director of Veterinary Nursing at the RCVS, said: "One of the strongest messages that came out of the research we conducted with the British Veterinary Nursing Association prior to the publication of the VN Futures Report was that there was a need for a more structured and rewarding career path for veterinary nurses.

"Throughout the VN Futures roadshow events nurses felt they were often entering a career cul-de-sac after a certain amount of time in practice and so the need for further post-registration qualifications which promote excellence and recognise advanced knowledge, skills, competency and experience in designated areas were strongly expressed.

"We have taken this feedback and developed it into a comprehensive framework for two defined post-registration qualifications and are very interested in hearing what both veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons have to say about all aspects of what we are proposing.

"Once we have collated the responses, we will incorporate the feedback into the framework for further consideration by the relevant committees and VN Council. The eventual aim is that these qualifications will, once sufficiently bedded in, lead to the development of an Advanced Veterinary Nurse status so that members of the VN profession with the sufficient skills and experience will get the recognition they truly deserve."

The two new qualifications included in the framework are a Graduate Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Nursing and a Postgraduate Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Nursing. Details of the courses’ structure, candidate assessment criteria, accreditation standards, student support, candidate eligibility rules, the RCVS enrolment process and the procedures for certification will be set out in a framework document as part of the consultation process. 

The document also includes a prospective list of designations for the two courses covering areas of advanced veterinary nursing knowledge such as wellness and preventative health; rehabilitation and physiotherapy; anaesthesia and analgesia; triage, critical care and emergency nursing; pharmacology; animal welfare; education and teaching; management and leadership; research; and, dentistry. 

The consultation will be launched in early July with an email sent to all veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons containing a link to the survey and asking for their views on the proposals. Details of the consultation, once launched, may also be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/consultations 

The VN Futures Report is available to download from www.vetfutures.org.uk/vnfutures

Portsmouth-based Simon Wood has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after being convicted of possessing indecent images of children.

Mr Wood was convicted of three offences which involved the download of 38 videos and 13 indecent images of children, at Portsmouth Magistrates’ Court in December 2017.

In January 2018, he was sentenced to a three-year Community Sentence for each offence, to run concurrently, and was made subject to a five-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order.

He was also fined £1,000 and ordered to pay costs of £340 and a victim surcharge of £85.

Mr Wood was also placed on the barring list by the Disclosure and Barring Service and required to register with the police pursuant to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for a period of five years.

Mr Wood appeared before the Disciplinary Committee, admitted his conviction and accepted that it rendered him unfit to practise veterinary surgery.

In determining the sanction, the Committee says it took into account a number of mitigating factors: his conviction involved no actual harm or risk of harm to an animal; there was no financial gain; he had engaged in open and frank admissions at an early stage; he was experiencing mental ill-health at the time of the offence; he had taken subsequent steps to avoid a repetition of such behaviour; there had been a significant lapse of time since the incident; and he showed insight into the harm caused by his offence. 

The Committee also considered that the purpose of a sanction is not to punish, but to protect the welfare of animals, as well as maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct. On consideration of the appropriate sanction, the Committee decided that postponement of judgement was not appropriate, and that taking no action was not an option. 

The Committee then considered whether a reprimand or warning was appropriate, but they considered that would not match the gravity of the offence – a period of suspension would also mean Mr Wood would automatically return to the Register after the period of time without the College being able to review his fitness to practise, rendering it an inappropriate sanction. The Committee therefore determined that the removal of Mr Wood from the RCVS Register was the only way to protect the wider public interest and maintain confidence in the profession.

Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee has not taken this decision lightly, and, lest it be misinterpreted, it has not taken it in order to satisfy any notional public demand for blame and punishment.

"It has taken the decision because in its perception, the reputation of the profession had to be at the forefront of its thinking and ultimately it was more important than the interests of the Respondent.

"The decision is not simply based on the fact that these offences were of a sexual nature but because they were repeated frequently over a significant period of time, and at the time, the Respondent knew on his own admission that what he was doing was wrong.

"Accordingly, the Committee had decided that removal from the Register is appropriate and proportionate in this case. The Committee will direct the Registrar to remove the Respondent’s name from the Register forthwith."

Mr Wood has 28 days to appeal the Committee’s decision after which, if no appeal is received, the Committee’s judgment takes effect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suffolk-based Dr Horia Elefterescu has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for dishonesty, clinical failings and poor record keeping.

The Committee heard seven charges against Dr Elefterescu. The charges were:

1. In September 2015, in relation to a male cat called Kitty Brown, he failed to undertake an adequate examination prior to surgery and that he undertook an unnecessary laparotomy.

2. In February 2016, in relation to a male cat called Storm Page, he failed to undertake an adequate clinical examination prior to anaesthesia and made dishonest or misleading entries in the clinical records stating that he had undertaken a full clinical examination.

3. In February 2016, in relation to a male cat called Sampson Page, he failed to undertake an adequate clinical examination prior to anaesthesia and made dishonest or misleading entries to the effect that he had undertaken a full clinical examination.

4. In February 2016, in relation to Tibial Plateau Levelling Osteotomy (TPLO) surgery performed on a female Bichon Frise called Lucy Allen, he failed to undertake adequate examinations into the possibility of a cranial cruciate ligament rupture or failed to record the same; performed the TPLO surgery with insufficient clinical justification; performed the surgery inadequately; failed to take steps to rectify inadequate surgery having obtained post-operative radiographs; made dishonest/ misleading entries into clinical records; and, in a letter to the RCVS on 7 August 2016, made dishonest and misleading comments.

5. In February 2016, in relation to a male cat called Kipper Morley, he failed to take and record a sufficiently detailed history; failed to undertake an adequate clinical examination; that, having noted the possibility that Kipper might have anaemia, he failed to make arrangements for urgent investigations to be undertaken; that, having decided to administer intravenous fluids to Kipper, failed to make arrangements urgently; and failed to keep clear, accurate and detailed clinical records.

6. Between September 2015 and February 2016, he failed to keep clear, accurate clinical records in relation to seven cases.

7. In February 2016, in relation to a male cat named Chino Biggs, he failed to undertake adequate clinical examination and dishonestly made entries in the clinical records saying that he had undertaken aspects of an examination when he had not done so.

Having heard evidence from complainants, witnesses (including expert witnesses) and the respondent himself the Committee determined that the facts of all the charges were proven – with the exception of part of Charge 6 regarding his keeping inadequate clinical records in relation to a male cat called Dax Parham.

The Committee then went on to consider whether the proven charges, both individually and cumulatively, amounted to serious professional misconduct. In relation to the first and fifth charges the Committee found that, while Dr Elefterescu’s conduct fell below what was expected of a professional veterinary surgeon – they did not constitute serious professional conduct.

In relation to the parts of the second, third, fourth, sixth and seventh charges that were found proven, the Committee determined that each constituted serious professional misconduct. 

In relation to these determinations, Ian Arundale, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The respondent’s clinical failures… are very serious, amounting as they do to failures in the basics of animal care and resulting in suffering to the animal. They involve widespread breaches of the Code, including not only the obligation in relation to animal health and welfare… but also the specific obligations of the Code in relation to record keeping. 

"In addition to his clinical and record keeping failures the respondent has been found to have acted dishonestly. This dishonesty would have impacted upon professional colleagues and any owner who viewed the records. It has the potential to undermine public confidence in the profession. The respondent was also dishonest in a letter written in August 2017 to his regulator."

In considering Dr Elefterescu’s sanction, the Committee took into account a number of aggravating and mitigating factors.

Aggravating factors included actual and risk of injury to animals, dishonesty, recklessness, breach of client trust, repeated misconduct and limited insight into his failings.

In mitigation the Committee considered that, at the time of the misconduct, the respondent was new to the UK, he had language difficulties which resulted in communication problems, that he was unfamiliar with UK veterinary computer systems and procedures, that he is of good character, that he has taken steps to avoid a repetition of his misconduct and that there have been no subsequent complaints since the dates of the matters in the charges.

However, the Committee found that, in light of the seriousness of the charges found against him, the only sufficient sanction was to direct the Registrar to remove Dr Elefterescu’s name from the Register. 

Mr Arundale, commenting on the sanction, said: "The respondent’s misconduct involved very serious departures from the professional standards set out in the RCVS Code…. In particular, the unnecessary surgery (both the initial and revision) carried out on Lucy Allen constituted very serious harm to an animal. The Committee considers that the respondent’s lack of insight into his failings, and his wholly unjustified confidence in his abilities constitute an ongoing risk to animal welfare. In these circumstances, the Committee has determined that the only sanction which is appropriate and proportionate, in order to ensure the welfare of animals, the public interest and the reputation of the profession, is to direct the respondent’s removal from the Register."

Dr Elefterescu has 28 days in which he can lodge an appeal with the Privy Council regarding the Disciplinary Committee’s decision.

Hampshire-based Roman Villar MRCVS has been found not guilty of serious professional misconduct by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee, during a hearing into four charges which related to his involvement in the sale of a horse.

The first charge was that in April 2016, having examined a horse named Alfie on behalf of his owner, Mr Villar gave an opinion to the potential buyers but failed to make it clear that he had not undertaken a pre-purchase examination; failed to declare to the buyer that he had a conflict of interest with regard to the owner; and, failed to explain the pre-purchase examination process to the buyers.

The second charge was that, in July 2016, during a telephone conversation with the buyer, Mr Villar was dishonest and failed to provide clear and accurate information because he told the buyers that he had only been asked to trot Alfie to check he was sound when he had, in fact, carried out a more substantial examination.

The third charge was that Mr Villar had offered to either the owner or the buyer, or both, that he would prepare a veterinary insurance certificate in relation to Alfie when he knew he did not have sufficient records (eg the microchip or passport number) to do so.

The fourth charge was that Mr Villar failed to respond adequately to communications from the buyers about Alfie.

The Committee found that Mr Villar had not in fact carried out a pre purchase examination (“PPE”) and referred to guidance from the British Equine Veterinary Association which identified that pre-purchase examinations are carried out on behalf of buyers. It noted that in this case, Mr Villar had undertaken an examination on behalf of the owner. Accordingly, it did not find that Mr Villar had failed to explain the PPE process to the potential buyers.

However, the Committee did find that Mr Villar had failed to declare that he had a conflict of interest in regards to Alfie’s owner. The Committee said that Mr Villar should have told the buyer that he had been acting on behalf of the owner and was not a neutral party in the potential sale.

The Committee found all aspects of the second charge not proven, on the basis that it was not satisfied so as to be sure that Mr Villar had told the potential buyers that he had only been asked to trot Alfie and check that he was sound.

The Committee found all aspects of the third charge proven on the basis that, in an email sent to the College in March 2016, Mr Villar admitted that he did not have the sufficient records to prepare a veterinary insurance certificate.

The Committee found the fourth charge not proven on the basis that the buyers were not his clients. The Committee therefore concluded that he had no obligation to respond to them, and indeed could not do so in certain respects in order to preserve the confidentiality of his client.

The Committee then determined that the charges found proven, when taken individually or in combination, did not amount to serious professional misconduct.

Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The following mitigating factors were present in this case: the circumstances of the incident, the fact that there was no premeditation, the fact that he was requested by his client to advance an opinion to [the buyers] concerning Alfie and that his ill judgement was on the spur of the moment and the fact that he had no financial gain. These are all important factors. Likewise, the fact that he did not know that the [buyers] regarded him as their pre-purchase examination vet is an important matter.

"The respondent’s conduct was clearly against the principles of behaviour articulated by Mr Morley [who acted as an expert witness for the College] in his expert report and in his evidence. Nevertheless, the Committee does not find that in the particular circumstances of this case, namely being asked to speak to a potential purchaser without warning and without being made aware of the contractual arrangements which had been made between the respondent and [the owner], the respondent should not properly be the subject of a finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."

The RCVS has announced the results of this year’s RCVS Council election which saw a turnout of 22.7%, compared to 22.8% last year and 15.6% the year before.

The results, in order of number of votes, are: 

• Elected: Susan Paterson – 3,976 votes

• Elected: Mandisa Greene – 3,819 votes

• Elected: Neil Smith – 3,544 votes 

• John Innes – 3,502 votes

• David Catlow – 3,310 votes

• Matthew Plumtree – 2,677 votes

• Iain Richards – 2,635 votes

• Karlien Heyrman – 2,487 votes

• John Davies – 580 votes

• Thomas Lonsdale – 542 votes

Due to the fact that a Legislative Reform Order (LRO) that amends the College’s governance has completed its passage through the House of Commons and House of Lords and is expected to be signed off by the relevant Minister to bring it into law, only the first three candidates are expected to take up their posts on Council at RCVS Day on 13 July 2018.

Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for the election, said: "I would like to thank all the candidates who stood for Council this year and would like to, in particular, congratulate Susan, Mandisa and Neil for being re-elected to RCVS Council.

"The LRO that is likely to be signed off in due course will reconstitute the makeup of Council – with greater lay and veterinary nursing input – and will also reduce the overall size of Council, including the number of elected members. Because of this only the first three – as opposed to the first six under previous rules – candidates are likely to be taking up a four-year term at RCVS Day 2018. Our commiserations go out to all the unsuccessful candidates, especially in this unusual transitional year, and we thank them for their participation in this year’s election."

The results of the election will be formally declared at this year’s RCVS Day – the College’s Annual General Meeting and awards ceremony – which takes place at the Royal Institute of British Architects on Friday 13 July 2018.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The RCVS and the BVA have launched Pets Need Vets, a social media campaign to highlight the benefits of registering a pet with a veterinary practice to the owners of the estimated 3.1 million pet dogs, cats and rabbits that have not done so¹.

The campaign gives 11 reasons why owners should register their pets with a veterinary practice, and encourages them to visit www.findavet.org.uk to find the right vet practice for them and their pet.:

1. Just like people, your pet can benefit from regular health checks to help stay happy and healthy.

2. Emergencies can happen at any time – registering means you’ll have easier access to emergency vet care whenever you need it.

3. Your vet knows a lot more about your animal than Dr Google and can provide tailored advice for your pet.

4. Regular weight checks and nutritional advice can help to keep your pet in shape – your practice’s vet nurses can often help with this.

5. Many vet practices run pet socialisation and training classes where you can meet other pet owners.

6. Your vet practice will hold your pet’s medical history to help diagnose any problems quickly.

7. Your veterinary practice can offer great advice about which pet is right for you because they will know you and your family. 

8. Your vet practice is best placed to recommend other services for your animal, whether that’s pet groomers and trainers, or referral to an advanced practitioner or specialist.

9. Veterinary staff are often animal owners too, so they understand that pets are a much-loved part of the family.

10. Vets and nurses have made a solemn promise to look after animals under their care; they study for many years and have to keep their knowledge and skills up to date.

11. There are some medicines that only vets can prescribe, so it helps to be registered with a practice.

BVA President John Fishwick said: "Pets need vets to ensure their lifelong wellbeing, which is why it is concerning that a large number of pet owners in the country have not registered their animals with a practice. It is important that owners have access to reliable advice and veterinary care to be able to best look after their pets, and so we are calling on the profession to get involved in promoting the wealth of benefits that registering with a vet practice provides."

RCVS President Professor Stephen May added: "Owning an animal is a huge responsibility, which is why access to professional veterinary advice is vital. With this campaign we aim to highlight some of the very considerable benefits of registering pets with a veterinary practice, and raise awareness amongst pet owners who have not yet registered of the value of having access to professional veterinary advice, expertise and treatment to keep their animals healthy. We would be delighted if practices across the country would help share these messages on their own social media accounts."

Vets, vet nurses and veterinary practices can help spread the word on the value of registering pets by sharing campaign resources on social media using the hashtag ‘#petsneedvets’, downloading campaign resources and using the opportunity to encourage local pet owners to register with their practice. 

To further highlight the value of veterinary care and the special bond between a veterinary professional and the animals under their care, BVA is also encouraging existing clients to share pictures of their pets at the vets online using the hashtags #lovemyvet and #lovemyvetnurse. 

The Pets Need Vets campaign stems from the aim of the joint BVA and RCVS Vet Futures Action Plan to develop communications tools to assist the public’s understanding of veterinary costs and fees, and promote the value of veterinary care.

More information on the campaign and shareable resources are available at https://www.bva.co.uk/petsneedvets and www.rcvs.org.uk/petsneedvets

Reference

1. Based on findings of the PDSA Animal Wellbeing (PAW) Report 2017

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has adjourned a hearing into James Staton after he submitted an application to voluntarily remove himself from the Register and never to apply to be restored.

There were two charges against Mr Staton, the first being that he failed to comply with eight requests from the RCVS sent by letter between November 2014 and August 2017 in relation to his continuing professional development (CPD) records.

The second charge was that between 1st January 2012 and 7th November 2017 he failed to have professional indemnity insurance or equivalent arrangements in place. 

Mr Staton’s request to adjourn the hearing and agree undertakings was not opposed by the RCVS. The Committee had regard to advice of the Legal Assessor and submissions from both counsel for the RCVS and legal advisor for Mr Staton. In accepting Mr Staton’s request for adjournment and his undertakings no admissions have been made in respect of the charges against him. 

In deciding whether to accept the adjournment and undertakings, the Committee was asked to consider a number of factors including Mr Staton’s age and health, his unblemished career of more than 50 years, the fact that he had closed his practice and retired from clinical practice on 31 March 2018 and that he had no intention of practising as a veterinary surgeon again. For those reasons the Committee felt it would be disproportionate to take Mr Staton through a full hearing.

Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "In coming to this decision the Committee considered the respondent’s application to adjourn this inquiry in the light of the evidence he adduced. It had regard to the interests of justice, the public interest in ensuring high standards are maintained by veterinary surgeons and the need to ensure the protection of animals and their welfare."

Should Mr Staton seek to apply to rejoin the Register then the proceedings will become active again and a Disciplinary Committee hearing will be scheduled.

The RCVS has updated its supporting guidance for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses on informed consent, with more advice on discussing informed consent with clients and who is responsible for seeking consent.

The Codes of Professional Conduct for both veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses stress the need for effective communication with clients and ensuring that informed consent is obtained and documented before treatments or procedures are carried out.

At its January meeting RCVS Standards Committee approved changes to chapter 11 (‘Communication and consent’) of the supporting guidance to the Codes to provide further advice to the professions on matters that should be discussed with clients to ensure informed consent is gained, provide clarification on who can gain consent for a procedure and give some additional guidance on consent forms.

Nick Oldham, Standards and Advisory Manager at the RCVS, said: "We hope that this updated guidance is more accessible, readable and will aid members of the profession in developing a more comprehensive approach to gaining informed consent for treatments and procedures and therefore reduce the risk of miscommunication and misunderstanding which can lead to concerns being raised by clients. 

"For example, we have updated our guidance to encourage veterinary surgeons to consider discussing a number of additional factors with a client before obtaining consent. This includes the nature, purpose and benefits of any treatment or procedures, the likely outcomes including potential risks, financial estimates, informing the client when other treatments may have available and checking that the client understands what they are agreeing to rather than assuming the client understands both the potential financial outlay and possible side effects.

"Furthermore, there is now additional guidance for veterinary surgeons on who should be seeking consent. While ordinarily it is expected that the veterinary surgeon undertaking the procedure or providing treatment is responsible for obtaining the client’s consent we know that this is not always practical.

"Therefore we clarify that the responsibility of obtaining consent can be delegated to another veterinary surgeon and, failing that, a registered veterinary nurse or student veterinary nurse could obtain consent provided that they are suitably trained, have sufficient knowledge of the proposed procedure or treatment and understand the risks involved.

"The RCVS Standards and Advice Team is also in the process of producing a series of fictional case studies based on informed consent issues encountered by the College’s Preliminary Investigation Committee which we hope will further help the profession."

The updated supporting guidance can be found in full at www.rcvs.org.uk/consent

The Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance can also be downloaded as an app for smartphones and tablets at www.rcvs.org.uk/codeapp

Members of the profession seeking confidential advice on matters relating to professional conduct can contact the Standards and Advice Team on 020 7202 0789 or advice@rcvs.org.uk

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded County Tyrone based Brian Phelim Mallon MRCVS, after it found a number of charges proved in relation to failing to obtain agreed consent for the euthanasia of a dog, for keeping no clinical records for that dog and for failing to reply to written questions from the owner.

The hearing concerned three separate charges against Mr Mallon. The first charge related to his treatment of a Labrador named Bailey on 15 September 2016 in which he was alleged to have euthanased the animal without the owner’s consent, after having been called out to her home following concerns about Bailey’s arthritis. 

The second charge related to failure to keep adequate clinical records for Bailey between 14 March 2015 and 30 September 2016.

The third charge related to failing to respond adequately to communications regarding Bailey’s treatment from his owner between 15 September 2016 and 6 January 2017.

At the outset of the hearing, Mr Mallon admitted the charge relating to keeping inadequate clinical records. However, he disputed the College’s evidence regarding euthanasing Bailey without his owner’s consent. He claimed to have had previous discussions with the owner’s husband about euthanasia six months prior to the event, that he had been informed that the owner had mentioned a possible need for euthanasia in a phone call earlier that day and that, on attending the premises, the owner’s mother had mentioned a need to put Bailey down. During the course of the hearing, Mr Mallon accepted that these incidents could not have reasonably amounted to consent. 

The Committee also heard and accepted evidence that the owner’s mother, who was present when Mr Mallon visited, had wished to contact her daughter to inform her about the planned euthanasia but that Mr Mallon proceeded to euthanase the animal regardless. The Committee also noted there was no contemporaneous clinical records nor any signed consent form for the procedure. Furthermore, the Committee found no evidence that there was a need to put Bailey down immediately and no reason why Mr Mallon could not have waited until the owner was present and had given consent.

Regarding the third charge, the Committee heard that the communications between Mr Mallon and the owner amounted to a telephone call on 15 September and a letter from the owner dated 16 September in which she asked a number of questions about Bailey’s treatment. The Committee accepted that, during the phone call, the owner had made a number of threats to Mr Mallon that had caused him to be fearful for himself and his property. Furthermore, the Committee found that there were a number of points in the subsequent letter to which he could have responded and the Committee noted that, when he was giving evidence, Mr Mallon expected the owner to apologise to him and withdraw the threats before he would engage with her complaint. The Committee therefore found the charge proved.

After finding the charges proved the Committee then went on to consider whether, individually and cumulatively, they constituted serious professional misconduct. It found this to be the case in respect of all three charges. Commenting on the first charge Jane Downes, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "He should have allowed the owner to come to an informed decision. He had an opportunity to obtain informed consent and he failed in this regard. By failing to take this opportunity he overrode the possibility of allowing [the owner] the right to choose whether to be present or to discuss Bailey’s prognosis."

The Committee then went on to consider the sanction for Mr Mallon and heard from a number of clients and professional colleagues who spoke to his skill, care, passion for animal welfare and high standing in his community. The Committee also considered 30 written testimonials from clients. In mitigation, the Committee also considered Mr Mallon’s otherwise unblemished 30-year career, the fact it was a single isolated event related to one animal and the fact that there was no evidence of systemic or repeated behaviour.

Jane Downes added: "The Committee concluded that the appropriate and proportionate sanction is a reprimand in this case. The Committee is confident that Mr Mallon will not repeat the conduct identified in this case again. The Committee wishes to advise Mr Mallon of the need to reflect on the outcome of this case, the need to have clear communication systems in place at this practice that are effective so as to avoid any possibility of miscommunication. The Committee further advises Mr Mallon of the need to be familiar and comply with all aspects of the Code [of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons] and its associated guidance, particularly in respect of keeping clinical records, informed consent and effective complaint management."

The RCVS Mind Matters Initiative (MMI) and the Doctors’ Support Network (DSN) are today marking the first anniversary of their joint '&me' campaign, which aims to tackle mental health stigma in the health professions by encouraging prominent members to speak out about their own experiences.

MMI seeks to address mental health and wellbeing issues within the veterinary profession, while the Doctors’ Support Network provides peer support for doctors and medical students with mental health concerns.

&me was launched this time last year at the Palace of Westminster at an event sponsored by Kevan Jones MP (Labour, North Durham,) who has spoken about his own experiences with depression. 

Overall eleven &me ambassadors have volunteered their own stories with mental ill-health:

• Dr Louise Freeman, tribunal member and vice chair DSN
• Dr Angelika Luehrs, consultant psychiatrist and co-chair DSN
• Dr Jonathan Richardson, group medical director for community services, Northumberland Tyne & Wear NHS Foundation Trust
• Dr Caroline Reed O’Connor, a senior trainee psychiatrist and psychotherapist
• David Bartram, RCVS Council member
• Malcolm Kinnear, consultant psychiatrist and Honorary Senior Clinical Teacher at the University of Dundee
• Rob Pettitt, Senior Lecturer in Small Animal Orthopaedics, University of Liverpool
• Professor Jamie Hacker Hughes, consultant clinical psychologist, psychotherapist, and supervisor
• Dr Cathy Wield, emergency medicine doctor and author
• Dr Susan Atcheson, senior GP
• Steve Carter, Director at Priory Veterinary Surgeons

A number of &me ambassadors will be taking part in an ‘&me live’ session at BSAVA Congress, from 5-8 April 2018 in Birmingham, providing a short overview of their story before taking questions from the audience. The session will take place from 8.30 to 10.10am on Saturday 7 April and will be open to all those attending Congress.

Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO and Mind Matters Director, said: "The feedback our &me ambassadors have received is truly heartening.

"Steve Carter, for example, had both an ex-student and colleague comment on his story thanking him for all he’s done, while a Facebook post about Rob Pettitt reached nearly 25,000 people.

"The campaign highlights how it is possible to recover from mental ill-health and flourish in your career, with the aim of encouraging those at the start of their mental ill-health experience to seek appropriate help, whether that is something profession-specific, such as Vetlife or DSN, or their GP."

Louise Freeman, Co-Chair of the DSN, added: "Many healthcare professionals face similar pressures that can lead to mental ill-health, including long hours, intense pressure, and the nature of the job which requires practitioners to constantly provide care for others, without necessarily recognising the need for self-care at the same time.

"A recurring theme that we’ve seen from these ambassadors’ stories has been that they drew on support from friends and family, and we really hope that this campaign encourages other professionals to seek help if they feel they are struggling."

The campaign is interested in hearing from not only doctors and veterinary surgeons but also nurses, veterinary nurses, dentists, pharmacists and other healthcare professionals who want to open up about their experiences of mental ill-health.

To participate in the campaign, email Dr Louise Freeman on vicechair@dsn.org.uk.

Further information about the ‘&me’ campaign can be found at www.vetmindmatters.org/&me, and a blog by Louise, 'Me and #AndMe', can be found at www.vetmindmatters.org/me-and-andme/.