The RCVS is calling for more volunteers to be part of an extended pilot for proposed changes to the way it measures continuing professional development.

This pilot was originally launched in February 2017 to trial proposed changes to CPD, which would concentrate less on hours logged and more on interactive, reflective learning and measuring the impact that CPD has on the individual’s practice and patient health outcomes.

Some 115 veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses volunteered, with 60 attending an induction days at the College’s office last year.

The College says the response to its proposals was largely positive, and at its meeting on 2 November 2017 RCVS Council agreed to an extension of the pilot for a further six-to-nine months, in order to increase the breadth of views on the changes and gather further evidence on its impact. 

The proposed model for CPD has four key components: planning, doing, recording and reflecting. While an overall majority of the 3,357 people who responded to the College’s 2016 consultation agreed with the proposed changes to the CPD requirement, certain elements received less support than others.

The lowest amount of support was received for the ‘reflection’ component with 35% of respondents disagreeing with it.

Shona McIntyre MRCVS, a teaching fellow in small animal medicine at the University of Surrey and the practitioner representative on the CPD Pilot Working Group, said: "As a general practitioner involved in the initial phase of the CPD pilot I was thrilled that we had so many from the profession engage with the consultation, and later with the pilot.

"By extending the pilot further we are looking to get an even wider range of views on board and fine-tune how we will be asking members of the profession to engage with the reflection element of the proposals. We are looking for a mix of those who support the proposals and those who have a ‘healthy scepticism’ about them and I can only encourage those not yet involved to consider signing up for the extended pilot and make their voice heard."

If you are interested in volunteering, contact Naila Hassanali, RCVS CPD Officer, via cpd@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0701.

Volunteers will be supported by RCVS staff throughout the trial. 

Further information, including the CPD Policy Working Party’s response to the consultation, is available on the College website: www.rcvs.org.uk/cpdconsultation/.  

Dr Gerhard Schulze Allen has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after failing to declare a conviction for petty theft in the USA both to a Notary Public in California and to the College.

The Disciplinary Committee heard four charges against Dr Schulze Allen.  

The first charge related to the original criminal conviction in the County of San Bernardino in California dating from September 2013, where Dr Schulze Allen pleaded guilty to petty theft for which he was fined US $435 and ordered to pay a fee of US $35.

The second charge related to the fact that, on or around 3 December 2013 in a written application for restoration to the Register, Dr Schulze Allen was dishonest in representing that he did not have any cautions or criminal convictions.

The third charge related to the fact that on or around 4 December 2013 in a sworn affidavit before a Notary Public in Riverside, California, he dishonestly and falsely represented that he had, at no time, been convicted of a criminal offence in the UK or elsewhere.

The final charge was that, in an email to the RCVS in June 2016, he dishonestly and falsely represented that he had "no criminal record whatsoever". 

Having found Dr Schulze Allen guilty of all four charges the Committee then considered whether the conviction rendered him unfit to practise veterinary surgery and whether the remaining charges amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

The Committee noted that the conviction was for a minor matter but had regard to all the evidence before it and considered that as an offence of dishonesty it represented a breach of one of the fundamental tenets of the profession. It further considered that Dr Schulze Allen’s dishonesty toward the College and his completing a legal document which he knew would be relied upon by the College was conduct that fell far short of the standard expected of a member of the profession.

With regard to the final charge, the Committee considered this a "clear attempt to deliberately misrepresent the fact that he had a conviction for a criminal offence." The Committee considered that Dr Schulze Allen’s conduct had been aggravated by the fact that it was protracted and repeated over a period of time.

Ultimately the Committee considered that the conviction rendered Dr Schulze Allen unfit to practise veterinary surgery and the remaining charges amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "His conduct represented a blatant disregard of the role of the RCVS and the systems that regulate the veterinary profession. The Committee also remained particularly concerned at Dr Schulze Allen’s very limited insight into his conduct."

He added: "In mitigation the Committee noted that this is not a case where harm was caused to any animals or humans. It noted that prior to these matters which are before the Committee that Dr Schulze Allen had an unblemished career and that he had been of good character. In respect of purely personal mitigation the Committee noted that Dr Schulze Allen is the main breadwinner of the family."

However, the Committee considered that Dr Schulze Allen’s conduct had fallen significantly short of standards expected of a veterinary surgeon.

Ian Green concluded: "The Committee considered that the only appropriate sanction is that of removal from the Register. Such a sanction is required to send a clear message to Dr Schulze Allen and to veterinary surgeons of the unacceptability of being dishonest to the RCVS. Such conduct undermines public confidence in the profession and fails to uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.

"Accordingly, the Committee has 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."

Dr Schulze Allen has 28 days from the date of the decision to appeal the Committee’s decision.

The Committee’s full findings and decision is available at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.

Nottinghamshire-based veterinary surgeon Victor Daniel Pousada Garcia has been suspended from the Register for five months by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee following a conviction for harassment.

Mr Garcia had pleaded guilty of harassment at Nottingham Magistrates Court last September and was sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months. The magistrates also imposed a restraining order and ordered Mr Garcia to pay compensation and costs as well as a surcharge to fund victim services. 

The harassment conviction related to incidents between 30 September 2016 and 27 December 2016 in which Mr Garcia engaged in conduct that amounted to harassment towards a woman including sending offensive text messages, visiting her place of work, attempting to contact her through social media, going to her home address and driving past her home address.

At the outset of the disciplinary hearing Mr Garcia admitted the College's charge against him and that his conviction rendered him unfit to practise veterinary surgery.

Following cross-examination of Mr Garcia on the facts of the case and having  considered representation from his counsel, the Disciplinary Committee found that Mr Garcia’s conduct leading to conviction and the conviction itself rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.

Mehmuda Mian, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "It was a serious conviction as demonstrated by the sentence imposed and by the nature of the harassment. It brought distress on [the victim] and will have damaged the reputation of the veterinary profession. The respondent was right to accept that this was the case."

Turning to the sanction for Mr Garcia the Committee considered a number of aggravating factors in his case including the distress caused to the victim as some of the text messages could be interpreted as threats to harm; the fact that Mr Garcia had continued to contact the victim after receiving a warning from the police; the fact he visited her place of work; that there was a sexual element to some of the messages he sent to the victim; and that the pattern of behaviour was sustained over three months and only ended with his arrest. It also considered that his behaviour was contrary to the Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance’s advice on professional and appropriate use of social media.

The Committee also considered mitigating factors such as the fact that, during the period of his conduct, there was a family illness and bereavement; that he admitted the charges before the magistrates and the Committee; that ‘social ineptitude’ was a factor and that he did not recognise the rejection he received from the victim; testimonials as to his capabilities as a veterinary surgeon; and insight into his behaviour as well as taking steps to avoid its repetition. 

Ms Mian concluded: "The Committee has determined to suspend the respondent’s registration for a period of five months. This sanction reflects the seriousness of the conviction and the concerns expressed by the Committee in this determination. It will send a message to the respondent and to the profession that conduct such as this is unacceptable. It will afford an opportunity to the respondent to reflect further on his behaviour." 

Mr Garcia will have 28 days from the end of the hearing to appeal against the Committee’s decision.

The Committee’s full findings and decision  are available at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has decided 'no further action' in a case against Bristol-based Nikolay Kirilov Radev MRCVS.

The committee considered 5 separate charges against Dr Radev, relating to his treatment of a Yorkshire Terrier and Shih Tzu cross called Pickles at a Vets4Pets veterinary practice in Oxford between 5 October 2015 and 1 November 2015. The charges related to Dr Radev failing to provide adequate and/or appropriate care to the animal and failure to keep detailed clinical records. 

After hearing the evidence from Dr Radev and the complainant, the College submitted that it wished to withdraw charges 1(i) and 1(ii) on the basis of insufficient evidence. In addition, Dr Radev had already admitted charges: 1(iii)(b), 1(iv)(d), 1(v), 4(i)(a) and 4(ii)(a) but denied the remaining charges. Of these remaining charges the Committee found charges 1(iv)(a), 2(i), 2(iv), 3(i) and 3(ii) proven with the rest not being proven. 

The charges admitted or found proven were that Dr Radev:

(1) On 5 October 2015, failed to provide adequate and/or appropriate care and/or treatment to Pickles, more particularly in that he:

(iii) Failed to offer and/or undertake adequate investigations into Pickles’ condition, more particularly in that he failed to offer and/or undertake:

(b)   urine tests;

(iv) Failed to put in place and/or document an adequate management plan for Pickles, more particularly in relation to:

(a) adequate direction and/or advice regarding a review of Pickles’ condition within a clearly defined number of days;

(d) collection of urine at home for analysis on review at the practice;

(v) Having noted that he suspected renal disease, prescribed meloxicam when the same was contraindicated for dogs with renal disease; 

(2)   On 28 October 2015, failed to provide adequate and/or appropriate care and/or treatment to Pickles, more particularly in that he:

(i) Failed to take and/or record an adequate history from Mrs Pancott in relation to Pickles’ condition and/or clinical signs since 5 October 2015;

(iv) Failed to provide adequate direction and/or advice regarding a date for a review of Pickles’ condition within a clearly defined number of days;

(3) On 30 October 2015, having been informed that Mrs Pancott had telephoned the practice with concerns about Pickles, including blood in the faeces;

(i) Failed to note the matter in Pickles’ medical records;

(ii) Failed to take sufficient steps to obtain more information from Mrs Pancott or to ensure that Mrs Pancott was advised to seek veterinary attention for Pickles in relation to her concerns;

(4) On 1 November 2015, failed to provide adequate and/or appropriate care and/or treatment to Pickles, more particularly in that he:

(i) Failed to interpret the blood tests adequately and/or take appropriate and adequate action in relation to the results of those blood tests, more particularly with regards to:

(a) blood glucose;

(ii) Failed to offer and/or undertake adequate investigations into Pickles’ condition, more particularly in that he failed to:

(a) offer and/or undertake urine tests.

In considering these charges the Disciplinary Committee found that only charge 4(ii)(a) – namely the failure to correctly interpret and act upon the results of a blood glucose test – amounted to serious professional conduct with the rest not passing the threshold of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. The Committee did not consider that in addition the cumulative effect of all the proven charges taken together amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In relation to the cumulative effect of all the proven charges Professor Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee noted that Dr Radev had made errors in relation to one patient but on four separate occasions. These were, for the most part, individual failures at the lower end of the scale of seriousness. Taking into account all of the failings, the Committee in its judgement did not consider that the nature and number of errors and the period of time over which they took place justified a cumulative finding of disgraceful conduct."

In considering the sanction for Dr Radev the Committee took into account a number of mitigating circumstances including the fact that Dr Radev had undertaken suitable training and development in the areas in which he made mistakes, had demonstrated good insight into his conduct and had made some open and frank admissions early on in proceedings. It also considered that the one charge that was found to be serious professional misconduct was a single, isolated mistake linked to Dr Radev’s inexperience.

Professor Barr said: "The Committee considered that taking ‘no further action’ was appropriate and proportionate having considered the history of the case, the Committee’s overall findings and the good reports of Dr Radev’s performance in the two years since the matter which had led to the finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."

The decision to take no further action was also influenced by the length of time it had taken the charges to be heard by the Committee, the positive character references about Dr Radev from professional colleagues and the fact he was unlikely to repeat such conduct in the future.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Faculty of Homeopathy and the British Association of Homeopathic Veterinary Surgeons (BAHVS) have responded to the RCVS's new position on the use of complementary and alternative medicines in veterinary practice.

The organisations say that the RCVS position is that it expects veterinary surgeons to offer treatments "underpinned by a recognised evidence base".

However, what the RCVS position statement actually says is: "we expect that treatments offered by veterinary surgeons are underpinned by a recognised evidence base or sound scientific principles".

As yet, neither the Faculty of Homeopathy nor the BAHVS have explained which sound scientific principles homeopathy may be based on. 

The Faculty of Homeopathy and the BAHVS go on to say that misinformation concerning the efficacy of homeopathy has been promulgated by a small minority opposed to homeopathy. 

However, a survey carried out by VetSurgeon.org and Alex Gough MRCVS, Head of Medicine Referrals at Bath Veterinary Group in 2013 found that 83% of veterinary surgeons opposed homeopathy, 78% to the degree that they felt it should not be practised under the the professional title of MRCVS. 

The BAHVS response claims there is quality evidence supporting the efficacy of homeopathy, in direct contradiction to the many and various bodies and studies that have concluded the reverse, including the NHS, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee and more recently, the European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC), an organisation representing the 29 national academies in Europe including the Royal Society, which recently declared in a statement that: "homeopathy is implausible" and "there is no rigorous evidence to substantiate the use of homeopathy in veterinary medicine."

The BAHVS claims there is growing interest in homeopathy from animal owners, "as they see conventional medicines regularly failing or producing adverse side-effects". It says: "this is especially true in livestock farming where there is a drive to reduce the dependence on antibiotics in light of concerns about antimicrobial resistance".

However, the recent EASAC statement specifically singled out the use of homeopathy in farm animals, saying that the lack of evidence is: "particularly worrying when such products are used in preference to evidence-based medicinal products to treat livestock infections."

The BAHVS response says that if the RCVS were to apply the same evidential criteria it is using for homeopathy to all treatments, there would be far fewer clinical options available to the profession; that the RCVS is limiting veterinary surgeons' clinical freedom. However, it doesn't substantiate this claim with examples of any clinical treatments used by veterinary surgeons which are not based on scientific principles and which would be limited if the same evidential standards applied.

VetNurse.co.uk supports the Campaign for Rational Veterinary Medicine. 

Photo: Multicolored homeopathy tubes isolated on a white background. Lush. Shutterstock.

The RCVS has announced that Lizzie Lockett has been appointed as its new Chief Executive Officer.

Lizzie joined the College as Head of Communications in February 2005, in which role she oversaw the launch of the Practice Standards Scheme in 2006, an overhaul of the College’s design and branding in 2011 and the joint British Veterinary Association Vet Futures project in 2014. More recently, she has been the driving force behind the Mind Matters mental health initiative.

Lizzie was appointed as Director of Strategic Communications in November 2015 and Deputy CEO in September 2016. She became Acting CEO when Nick Stace left the position of CEO at the end of September 2017.

RCVS President Professor Stephen May said: "This was a very rigorous recruitment process with a very strong field of candidates and so it is a testament to Lizzie’s abilities and achievements that she saw off all the opposition.

"For some time Lizzie has been involved in setting the direction of the College through the Strategic Plan and the initiatives and projects that she has managed, which really have had a very tangible impact on the profession.

"For example, the Vet Futures project has encouraged the profession to think more strategically about the issues that are facing it and how to achieve constructive solutions, while the Mind Matters Initiative has helped get veterinary mental health further up the agenda and reduced the stigma that many feel about it.

"Her drive and her passion has really pushed these projects forward and I believe she will bring this to the role of CEO.”

Lizzie said: "I am delighted and feel honoured to have been chosen to take the College forward into its next stage of development. I see the Council’s choice of an internal candidate, able to maintain momentum for change and help the College continue on our current strategic path, as an endorsement of the amazing work of the staff at Belgravia House.

"Under Nick Stace’s leadership, the College achieved some really excellent things for the profession, the public, and animal health and welfare, and I look forward to our next exciting chapter."

A consultation held earlier this year by the RCVS has found that both veterinary surgeons and nurses overwhelmingly think nurses should be able to perform additional tasks that are not currently permitted under Schedule 3 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966.

The consultation invited members of the professions to explain how they currently understand and interpret Schedule 3 in practice, how it could be clarified and how it might be amended to bolster the veterinary nursing profession. 

11,625 people responded to the consultation, the highest number that has ever responded to an RCVS consultation. 6,873 were veterinary nurses (around 35% of the profession and including 1,665 student veterinary nurses) and 4,752 were veterinary surgeons (around 21% of the profession).

The report on the consultation, which is published today by the Institute for Employment Studies, found that 92% of veterinary nurses and 71% of veterinary surgeons think veterinary nurses should be able to undertake additional areas of work.

However, neither vets nor nurses seem to have an especially good understanding of the current scope of Schedule 3 and how it applies in practice, rating their personal understanding at 5.6 and 6.7 out of 10 respectively.

When asked what prevented the full utilisation of veterinary nurses, the majority of both vet and vet nurse respondents highlighted a lack of understanding of what tasks can be delegated under Schedule 3, with around 60% of veterinary surgeons also admitting that they are not good at delegating.

61% of veterinary nurses and 50% of veterinary surgeons thought that the RCVS gives sufficient support and advice about Schedule 3, though the relatively poor level of understanding amongst veterinary surgeons in particular suggests more needs to be done.

In corresponding comments both veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons said they would like more clarity, especially around 'grey areas' such as the meaning of the term 'minor surgery', as well as further communication from the College about Schedule 3 and for more training for veterinary nurses to ensure they have the competence and the confidence to carry out delegated procedures.

Liz Cox, Chair of RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council, said: "Thank you to all those who responded to the consultation in such large numbers and who shared their views on this topic. The consultation grew out of the government’s suggestion that we review Schedule 3 as a means of bolstering the VN profession, and from the VN Futures project last year, when Schedule 3 was identified as an area where there could be some additional work to clarify the rules around delegation to veterinary nurses.

"There was a clear consensus that veterinary nurses could do more in their role and under Schedule 3 and so we will be feeding the findings back to the RCVS Legislation Working Party, which will be looking, in the round, at possible changes to the framework of veterinary legislation, including how it applies to veterinary nurses and other paraprofessionals.

"In terms of the understanding of Schedule 3 and how it applies in practice it is clear that we need to do some further work to clarify the rules and develop guidance to assist both veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons in exercising their professional judgement in respect to delegation, for example, through case studies and other examples." 

Looking at the tasks currently performed by veterinary nurses, the survey found the five most commonly performed are: clinical cleaning (92%), administration of medicines by subcutaneous injection (91%), administration of medication (90%), monitoring of anaesthesia (86.5%) and administration of medicines by intramuscular injection (86%).

The consultation also found that the majority of veterinary nurses are involved in clinics aimed at educating animal owners on various different aspects of animal health and welfare. The most common include puppy/kitten care (66.5% of respondents), nutrition (65% of respondents), general check-ups (62.5% of respondents) and dental care clinics (57% of respondents).

Post-survey interviews with 10 veterinary nurses and 10 veterinary surgeons found a number of recurring themes, including: limited career paths for veterinary nurses; poor pay for VNs relative to their training and complexity of work; lack of recognition and appreciation for the VN role; enthusiasm for advanced practitioner and specialist status for VNs; and difficulty recruiting experienced VNs.

The College says the results of the consultation will now be considered by the RCVS Schedule 3 and Legislation Working Parties, which are reviewing the efficacy of the current Veterinary Surgeons Act and whether changes need to be made to bring the legislative framework for the profession up-to-date, including consideration of the part played by allied professions like veterinary nurses in the veterinary team.

The full report can be downloaded here.

Warwickshire-based Elizabeth Gatehouse MRCVS has been suspended for two months by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for falsely confirming the vaccination of a horse to a fellow veterinary surgeon, and for fabricating an entry in the horse’s clinical records.

Ms Gatehouse faced two charges, the first being that she inaccurately assured another veterinary surgeon that she had vaccinated a horse against influenza and tetanus  when she had not, and she subsequently failed to undertake adequate checks to confirm whether she had done so. 

The second charge was that she later made a false entry in the same horse’s clinical records to cover up her previous inaccurate statement. 

Ms Gatehouse admitted the facts alleged in relation to both charges and also admitted that in relation to the second charge she was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

The Committee, having heard submissions from Counsel for the RCVS and Ms Gatehouse found her guilty of disgraceful conduct in relation to the first charge.

Under the first charge the Committee found that she had breached the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons by not keeping clear, accurate and detailed clinical and client records, and by acting in a manner that was likely to undermine public trust in the profession.

They also considered that her falsehood was unpremeditated, and that the decision was made in a moment of panic. Ultimately, however, by claiming the horse was vaccinated to another veterinary surgeon and not taking the necessary steps to confirm this, she failed to put the welfare of the animal first, potentially endangering it and any other horses it came into contact with, as well as potentially jeopardising the position of the veterinary surgeon she confirmed it to.

Having found Ms Gatehouse guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to both parts of the charge the Committee then considered its sanction against her. In mitigation the Committee considered the fact that she had been in practice for 22 years without any untoward conduct, the testimony of three witnesses who attested to her being an honest and trustworthy practitioner, and the fact that Ms Gatehouse was in a troublesome relationship with the complainant until June 2014 which led her to be reluctant to contact him to correct her initial confirmation. 

In summing up Stuart Drummond, Chair of the Committee, said: "The Committee has considers that it is material to have regard to the general emotional state to which the Respondent was reduced by the controlling and debilitating conduct of her then partner when they were living together and the consequential loss of self-esteem and ability to stand up to him and his demands. The deleterious effect of an abusive relationship lingers after such a relationship ends. 

"Taking into account this knowledge, the Committee considers that the period of suspension that would, in other circumstances, be entirely merited, can properly be reduced in this instance to reflect the fact that this veterinary surgeon would not have acted as she did during this period but for the fact that her judgement was adversely affected by her experience at the hands of her then former partner. 

"The decision is that, whilst it is necessary, in order sufficiently to protect animals and the wider public interest, to impose a period of suspension from practice, that period can be reduced to one of two months. In so concluding the Committee wishes to make it clear that this decision reflects the special features of this case."

Ms Gatehouse can choose to appeal the decision after a period of 28 days.

RCVS Council members have unanimously agreed the establishment of an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) service to help resolve lower-level complaints about veterinary services through mediation.

Since 2014 the RCVS has trialled two different ADR services with the aim of helping resolve complaints between animal owners and veterinary practices that do not meet its threshold for serious professional misconduct. 

Since October 2016, this has been in the form of the Veterinary Client Mediation Service (VCMS), administered by Nockolds Solicitors. The VCMS is free for both animal owners and veterinary professionals and cases will only be taken with the consent of both parties.

Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: "We are very pleased that ADR in the form of mediation has received the unanimous support of RCVS Council members as part of the process for handling veterinary complaints.

"Throughout its trial period the VCMS has very much been complementary to our concerns investigation and disciplinary process. While we are bound by statute to investigate concerns, it has allowed our Professional Conduct Team to 'triage' cases, and to signpost complainants either to the College or the VCMS as appropriate. This has allowed greater time and resources to investigate concerns that could constitute serious professional misconduct.

"We also believe that the VCMS is good for both the public and the profession because it encourages both parties to communicate, find areas of agreement and come to constructive solutions, rather than being an adversarial process that assigns blame and adjudicates remedies."

Jennie Jones, a partner at Nockolds Solicitors which administers the VCMS, said: "The service is here to help veterinary clients and practices find a resolution for complaints that cannot be resolved within the practice. Complaints are referred to the VCMS by clients and practices where the relationship has become strained or communication may be difficult.  Importantly the service does not look at who is right or wrong, but focuses on finding an outcome that both parties can live with and bringing an end to the complaint.

"In our experience this has ranged from reassuring clients and helping them to come to terms with what has happened, refunding fees, further explanations, apologies, small goodwill payments, securing procedural changes at the practice and agreement by the client to settle outstanding fees which have been withheld because of the complaint.

"We understand complaints are highly emotional and stressful for both parties, so the VCMS team will not ask parties to speak to one another directly. It is also not about assigning blame but is about moving forward to allow both parties to bring the complaint to a conclusion. When we hear from practices and clients alike that they can now sleep at night, or their relief that a complaint is resolved, I know ADR and the VCMS does help and make a difference."

The College says that during the trial period, 165 of the 870 enquiries received by the VCMS went to mediation. Of these, 129 were successfully mediated with the other 36 remaining unresolved. Of the other enquiries 297 resulted in the animal owner being referred back to the practice so that internal complaints processes could be exhausted first, 93 did not progress because the animal owner did not pursue the complaint, 73 were dealt with through advice, 66 did not progress as the practice declined to engage, 76 were outside the service’s remit and 100 are currently ongoing.

Taking into account the overall feedback received from both animal owners and veterinary professionals and the positive responses on the independence and fairness of the VCMS, Council agreed that Nockolds continue administering the scheme, with a review starting in 18 months’ time to take into account experience and learning as the scheme continues to evolve. During the Council meeting statements of support for the VCMS were also heard from a representative of the Veterinary Defence Society (VDS) and an independent consultant on consumer affairs.

A spokesperson for the VDS said: "The VDS assisted over 150 practices that agreed to participate in the ADR trial and developed a constructive working relationship with the VCMS staff. In the vast majority of cases mediation has resulted in a satisfactory outcome with little or no financial consequences.

"The Society considers this voluntary scheme particularly suited to the many client care complaints that are directed at the RCVS due to public misunderstanding of the College’s role, but the investigation of which creates disproportionate concern to the professionals involved. The independent nature of the VCMS has been a key feature of the trial, although access to experienced, non-judgemental, veterinary advice has provided the necessary professional expertise when necessary."

More information about the VCMS and its processes can be found on the service’s dedicated website: https://www.vetmediation.co.uk/

To contact the service directly call 0345 040 5834 or enquiries@vetmediation.co.uk

The RCVS has announced that it will be at BVNA Congress this year (6th-8th October), seeking delegates' views about what Schedule 3 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, which allows vets to delegate certain procedures and treatment to veterinary nurses, means to them in practice.

In addition, College representatives will be talking to delegates about the future of veterinary nursing, career diversification and mental health.

The College’s stand will have a Schedule 3-themed game in which delegates will be given a list of procedures and then asked to decide whether or not they could be delegated to a veterinary nurse under Schedule 3 of the VSA.

Julie Dugmore, Director of Veterinary Nursing at the College, and Beth Jinks, Advice Officer, will also be giving a talk at the Congress on Saturday 7 October from 2pm to 3pm about the Code of Professional Conduct and how it relates to Schedule 3.

Julie said: "We conducted our consultation on Schedule 3 earlier this year for two main reasons: to gauge how both vets and vet nurses applied it in practice and to consider possible changes that could be made to the legislation so that veterinary nurses could perform additional tasks. We hope that, with the game and with our talk, we can encourage veterinary nurses to think about their understanding of Schedule 3 and how it could be changed to bolster their profession."

Visitors to the RCVS stand will also be able to get an update on the VN Futures project and the latest progress on all its major workstreams including One Health, structured and rewarding career paths, creating a sustainable workforce and having a confident, healthy and resilient workforce.

In order to demonstrate the rewarding career paths available to veterinary nurses the College has worked with the BVNA to develop a series of case studies to show the different areas of work available to nurses including academia, management, industry and even the military. These will be available to view on the VN Futures section of the Vet Futures website: www.vetfutures.org.uk/vnfutures

There will also be an on-stand survey to ask delegates whether they would like to see the development of an Advanced Veterinary Nurse status and, if so, the areas in which they would like to developed advanced skills.

Furthermore, there will also be a Mind Matters stream at Congress (named after the College’s Mind Matters mental health initiative) on Saturday 7 October. Talks during this stream will cover issues such as coaching and mentoring staff and mental health first aid.

A full programme for Congress is available from the BVNA website: https://www.bvna.org.uk/cpd/bvna-congress

The RCVS Mind Matters Initiative and the Doctors’ Support Network (DSN) have now signed up seven ambassadors for their AndMe (#AndMe) mental health campaign, designed to de-stigmatise mental ill-health within the healthcare professions.

The College says that although professional bodies advise their members to value their own wellbeing and seek help if unwell, there has been an absence of senior professionals who have felt able to say 'been there myself'.

By asking senior medical professionals to share their stories of overcoming struggles with mental health, &me aims to encourage other medical professionals to seek help, in part by showing that such experiences do not exclude people from achieving leading roles in healthcare.

With the addition of Dr Cathy Wield in August, there are now seven ambassadors for the &me campaign, and all of their stories can be read at www.vetmindmatters.org/&me: 

• Dr Caroline Reed O’Connor, who went on to be a senior trainee psychiatrist and psychotherapist after being diagnosed with bipolar disorder
• David Bartram, a veterinary surgeon and member of RCVS Council who was in hospital multiple times as a result of depression before gaining additional qualifications and moving into roles of increasing responsibility
• Dr Malcolm Kinnear, a psychiatrist who took long-term sick leave for depression before completing his training to become a consultant and taking an honorary teaching position at the University of Dundee
• Dr Susan Atcheson, a senior GP who has experienced multiple episodes of psychotic depression
• Rob Pettitt, a vet and Senior Lecturer at the University of Liverpool who experienced depression, taking eight weeks off work before slowly returning to a full-time schedule 
• Professor Jamie Hacker Hughes, a psychologist, psychotherapist and supervisor, who was diagnosed with bipolar affective disorder. He then went on to gain a consultant post with the Ministry of Defence, achieve three fellowships and four professorships, establish a research institute and become President of the British Psychological Society
• Dr Cathy Wield, a doctor who experienced two bouts of severe depression including hospital admissions and brain surgery. She returned to work in emergency medicine, and has written two books about her experience of being a doctor with depression.
• Dr Susan Atcheson, a senior GP who first experienced recurrent psychotic depression 20 years ago.

Lizzie Lockett, Director of the Mind Matters Initiative, said: "Over the past eight months we have seen an incredible level of support for our &me ambassadors. Our Facebook post about Rob Pettitt, for example, reached nearly 25,000 people, many of whom posted stories about Rob helping them navigate veterinary school and better understand their own mental health issues. These kind of role models really do help reduce stigma, and we thank every one of our ambassadors for having the courage to share their own experiences with mental health."

Louise Freeman, Vice-Chair of the Doctors’ Support Network, said: "The &me campaign has really shown how the medical professions can work together when it comes to mental health. Medical professionals face many of the same challenges, and we needn’t face them alone – instead we can work as one to tackle stigma and speak openly about mental health issues. And it’s not just in the UK that health professionals can feel as if they are ‘not allowed’ to experience mental health problems. As a direct result of the &me campaign, health professionals from around the world including Australia and the U.S. have been in contact with DSN to confirm that they have similar issues within their local health culture."

The campaign is still 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, please email Dr Louise Freeman on vicechair@dsn.org.uk.

On social media tweets about the campaign are sent from @vetmindmatters and @DocSupportNet twitter accounts using the hashtag #AndMe.