View all veterinary jobs
The RCVS has announced that nominations are now open for the Veterinary Nursing Golden Jubilee Award 2014, an an honour which recognises those who have made an outstanding contribution to the veterinary nursing profession.
Nominations can be made until 1 May 2014 and this year the College is looking for nominees who have made an exceptional contribution to the profession, animal welfare or patient care - whether in clinical practice, education, research or politics. Nominees can be registered or listed veterinary nurses, veterinary surgeons or lay people.
Kathy Kissick, Chair of VN Council, said: "With this award we are looking for someone who can be an excellent ambassador for the veterinary nursing profession; who has made a real and substantial difference to the profession; and who can raise its profile and fight its corner.
"I would urge all those who are passionate about the profession and its future to put forward someone who they think is deserving of this honour."
The award was launched in 2011 to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the first RCVS veterinary nursing training scheme. The first recipient of the award was Jean Turner, while Sue Badger received the accolade in 2012.
The nomination form for the award can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk/goldenjubilee which also features a video of Kathy Kissick talking about its importance. Alternatively, you can view the video on www.youtube.com/rcvsvideos
The nominators must be registered/listed veterinary nurses or veterinary surgeons but the two additional proposers can be lay people.
For further information about the award please contact Annette Amato, Deputy Head of Veterinary Nursing, on 020 7202 0713 or a.amato@rcvs.org.uk.
Dr Bremner was convicted in 2017 of harassing his ex-wife, and for perverting the course of justice by sending his daughter an e-mail, pressuring her to ask her mother to withdraw the charges against him. He pleaded guilty to both of the charges, saying he did not understand that it was a condition of his bail that he could not contact his ex-wife. He also expressed shame and remorse at his actions, explaining that his behaviour was triggered by extreme anger, grief and stress.
In relation to the charges, the Respondent was committed to prison for 12 months, suspended for 12 months, ordered to comply with a Rehabilitation Activity Requirement within 12 months, and ordered to pay £85 in costs and £115 as a surcharge to pay for victim services.
The Committee found the facts proved based on the certified copy of the certificate of conviction, as well as the Respondent’s admissions to the facts of the charges. It was satisfied that the Respondent brought the profession into disrepute by the seriousness of his convictions. In addition, the Committee regarded the Respondent as having deficient insight and a need to fully accept personal responsibility for his actions and their consequences.
The Committee was also satisfied that the nature of the communications sent by the Respondent which led to the convictions and the breach of bail conditions, coupled with deficient insight amounted to serious professional misconduct and rendered him unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
The Committee considered various mitigating factors including the fact that no actual harm occurred to any animal, there were no concerns raised about the respondent’s practice, that he has a long and unblemished career, and that he showed some insight into his offences which continues to develop.
The Committee also took into account that preventing the Respondent from practicing could mean the loss of jobs for 33 or so employees, which weighed heavily on their decision. The Committee also agreed with the RCVS’s submissions that there was a very low likelihood of repetition of the offending behaviour. Aggravating factors included the emotional harm caused to the Respondent’s ex-wife, and that the harassment was a course of conduct sustained over a period of five months.
Therefore, when taking into account the particulars of this case, the Committee decided to impose a reprimand and warning on the basis that it would be proportionate to maintain public confidence in the profession in light of the serious nature of these charges.
Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee was of the view that the conviction for intending to interfere with the course of justice was particularly serious, in light of the need to maintain public confidence in the profession, because it involved a disregard of proper criminal process.
"However, a particular feature of this case is the risk to the jobs of 33 or so employees if the Respondent were to be prevented from practising as a result of the Committee’s imposition of a sanction. It is this mitigating factor which weighed most heavily with the committee and they therefore concluded that both a Reprimand as to this conduct and a Warning as to any future conduct is sufficient and proportionate in this case to meet the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards."
Mr Bremner has 28 days in which to make an appeal about the Committee’s decision to the Privy Council.
The RCVS Charitable Trust is offering up to 5 grants to veterinary nurse training centres to purchase equipment worth up to £5,000.
Applications may be made for equipment which is directly used for veterinary nurse training of care and treatment of animals. All RCVS accredited UK veterinary nurse training centres are eligible to apply.
Tracy Mayne, RVN and Trustee, said: "Traditionally we directed our equipment grants only to the veterinary schools, but last year we extended the eligibility to include veterinary nurse training centres, and in 2011 we decided to dedicate the funding solely to veterinary nurse training, as part of celebrating 50 years of the profession.''
All applications must be received by 5pm on Monday 31 October 2011.
Further information including full application criteria, is available from www.rcvstrust.org.uk/grants/
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has restored Joseph Lennox Holmes to the Register of Veterinary Surgeons, two years after he was originally struck off.
Mr Holmes was removed from the Register in February 2012 after the Disciplinary Committee found him guilty of multiple charges of serious professional conduct. Mr Holmes lodged an appeal against the decision, which was heard and dismissed by the Privy Council.
The original charges related to two separate complaints; the first involved numerous charges in respect of Mr Holmes' treatment of a King Charles Spaniel between October 2007 and March 2008; the second, several charges in relation to his treatment of three cats in 2008.
The Committee found that the majority of the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct. In removing Mr Holmes from the Register, the Committee found that "aggravating factors in both... cases included actual injuries to the animals... and a serious breach of the trust which Mr Holmes' clients had placed in him to make the welfare of the animals his primary consideration according to the standards to be expected of the profession". In addition, the Committee cited 10 further aggravating factors including lack of reference to continuing professional development (CPD) in clinical policies and practices; lack of reference to accepted practice; lack of appreciation of the importance of adequate pain relief when performing painful surgical procedures; reluctance to consider referral as an option; and lack of understanding about what information is required by a client to enable fully informed consent to be given.
Following the dismissal of Mr Holmes' appeal by the Privy Council, his first application for restoration was heard by the Disciplinary Committee in February 2013. The Committee was not satisfied that he was fit to be restored to the Register, citing the fact that his application was "premature" and that he had failed to truly appreciate the seriousness of the findings against him. The Committee was also unimpressed with the efforts he had made to keep up-to-date with skills and developments in practice and with his CPD, noting in particular that he had made very limited attempts to observe the function and experience the culture of a modern first opinion practice.
However, in this week's two-day hearing, the Committee was satisfied that Mr Holmes was now fit to be restored to the Register. It heard that Mr Holmes had made a concerted effort to engage in CPD and bring his skills and knowledge up-to-date. During a period of observation at a veterinary practice, he had gained insight into modern practice and the need for veterinary general practitioners to be aware of the advantages in referring patients to specialists.
Professor Noreen Burrows, who chaired and spoke on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, said: "The Committee has concluded that, in the course of genuine efforts to do what was necessary to address the deficiencies identified during the original Inquiry and at the last restoration hearing, the Applicant has at last understood the seriousness of his previous misconduct and has learned new skills and, most importantly, to recognise his limitations from the extensive course of study, reflection, and other training that he has undertaken."
Furthermore, the Committee was satisfied that Mr Holmes had gained a proper understanding of the importance of securing the informed consent of his clients and building a relationship of trust with them and, in addition, recognising the importance of maintaining close relations with fellow professionals and engaging with CPD opportunities.
Additional factors considered when making the decision included: that he had been off the Register for two years; that, through self-improvement, he had equipped himself to treat animals appropriately; the impact that being removed from the Register had in both personal and financial terms; his conduct since being removed from the Register; and, a number of positive testimonials from previous clients and professional colleagues.
The Committee's full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
The first MRCVS to be killed in the First World War has been honoured with a portrait at the College's offices in Belgravia House - 100 years after his death.
The portrait of Lieutenant Vincent Fox, who was from Dundalk, Co Louth, and was an alumnus of the then Royal Veterinary College in Dublin, was presented by his great grand-nephew, James Tierney, and received by RCVS Registrar Gordon Hockey.
Lieutenant Fox, a member of the former Army Veterinary Corps (AVC), was killed in action by a shell on August 26 1914 during the Battle of Le Cateau in northern France in which British and French forces fought to impede a German advance. He is now buried in the nearby Commonwealth War Grave Cemetery at Caudry.
Paul Watkins, a veterinary surgeon and military historian, conducted the research into Lieutenant Fox, his career and his deeds in the First World War, with the help of his family. He said: "The family story was that he had been found dead in a church with no mark or scars on him and, in fact, this turned out to be completely true.
"The church where he died was in the village of Audencourt in northern France where a dressing station had been set up for the wounded.
"The key issue was that, in the absence of the Royal Army Medical Corps, Lieutenant Fox was ordered to take charge of the medical treatment of the men using his skills as a veterinary surgeon. I'm sure he did his very best under such extreme circumstances but he would have been very ill-equipped."
Talking more generally about the role of the AVC during the First World War, Dr Watkins said: "The AVC made very significant contributions to the war effort because there were so many horses and mules deployed. They would have been responsible for a range of tasks from husbandry - and educating other soldiers on husbandry - to the treatment of injured animals."
In total, some 67 veterinary surgeons are believed to have been killed in the First World War - of whom 34 died from disease, 24 died as a result of wounds and nine were killed in action.
On presenting the portrait, which was drawn by artist Dave Gleeson based on a photograph of Lieutenant Fox, Mr Tierney, from Dublin, said: "I am very pleased that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has accepted this portrait as future generations of vets will be able to see it here and learn about my great grand-uncle's story.
"He has become my hero because he died while trying to save human lives and, for me, that's a huge source of pride.
"While his story is very interesting, however, it's not just about him. There are 66 other names on the RCVS First World War memorial and they all have a story to tell as well."
Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar, added: "We are very pleased to receive this portrait of Lieutenant Fox in recognition of the sacrifice he made during the First World War. The fact that he died while tending to his wounded fellow soldiers demonstrates the caring nature of the profession and the wider contribution to society made by veterinary surgeons.
"In this centenary year I would also like to commend the contribution made by members of the profession as a whole during the war."
Throughout the centenary the RCVS Knowledge Library blog - written by Clare Boulton, Head of Library and Information Services - will be updated with stories about the conduct of veterinary surgeons in the First World War. Visit rcvsknowledgelibraryblog.org to see the updates.
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.
At the June 2017 meeting of RCVS Council, members decided to look into two models by which paraprofessionals working in the veterinary, animal health or related fields, might be regulated by the College under powers granted by the RCVS’s Royal Charter in 2015.
The first was an accreditation model, which would involve the RCVS accrediting an organisation which would regulate the profession in question. The second was an associate/ full regulation model, in which individual paraprofessionals would receive a similar level of regulation to that already received by veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.
At its January 2019 meeting, RCVS Council agreed to proceed with both proposed models of paraprofessional regulation, with the suitability of each model being considered on a case-by-case basis, depending on the nature of the profession applying for recognition.
Paraprofessions whose work will need to be underpinned by Schedule 3 reform would need to apply for the associate model, as the RCVS would be required to be directly responsible for the register of any individuals undertaking such minor acts of veterinary surgery.
Two paraprofessional groups that have already expressed an interest in being regulated by the College, namely meat inspectors and animal behaviourists, will now be invited to apply for associate or accredited status.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: "This is a very significant decision by Council to open up a pathway to related paraprofessions to apply to become regulated by the College.
"It is difficult to give a time-frame at this stage as to when these particular professions will be brought on board, as we will have to go through a process of developing a number of new regulatory structures including registration, education and investigation and disciplinary, as well as the appropriate governing bodies for each of the professions.
"However, we are very pleased that the Association of Meat Inspectors (AMI) and the Animal Behaviour and Training Council (ABTC) have expressed an interested in being regulated by the College and we look forward to working with them to make this happen."
David Montgomery, President of the ABTC, said: "The ABTC enthusiastically welcomes the news that the RCVS is expanding its influence to include paraprofessionals. We look forward to exploring the opportunity to demonstrate the professional status of ABTC-registered Animal Trainers and Behaviourists by coming under the regulatory umbrella of the RCVS for the benefit of animal welfare."
Ian Robinson, a Trustee of the AMI, said: "The Association of Meat Inspectors welcome the news that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons intends to invite paraprofessionals to be regulated under the ambit of the RCVS. We believe it will offer enhanced security, opportunity and status, and we look forward to further dialogue to explore the various models in due course."
The College says it is also in touch with a number of other paraprofessional groups, including those representing animal musculoskeletal practitioners and equine dental technicians, about the future of paraprofessional regulation. However, before such professions could become associates, there would need to be reform of the Veterinary Surgeons Act in order to remedy some of the deficiencies of the current legislative regime and make sure that these groups have appropriate legal underpinning for their work. This, says the College, complements ongoing discussions on changes to the legislative framework to bolster the role of veterinary nurses.
On particular issue that the College says the new proposals are designed to remedy is that of equine dental procedures being carried out by well-trained but nevertheless unregulated paraprofessionals. Neil Townsend, Chair of the British Equine Veterinary Association’s (BEVA) Allied Professional Committee, said: "Change to the current situation, where legislative enforcement is impossible, horse owners are confused, and horse welfare is compromised, is long overdue. BEVA is really pleased that the RCVS has listened and is supporting a proposal for regulation of all equine dental procedures. We hope that Government will act."
RCVS President Amanda Boag, said: "This is a real milestone in the history of the RCVS and represents quite possibly the biggest change to our regulatory role since the introduction of the Register of veterinary nurses in 2007, and should Schedule 3 reform be achieved it would be the most significant change since the role of veterinary nurses was first recognised in law in 1991. It is particularly befitting for our 175th anniversary year, as it demonstrates we are an organisation that can evolve to meet the changes occurring in the wider veterinary and animal health sector and use our regulatory experience and expertise to ensure that animal health and welfare and public health is safeguarded in different, but related fields of endeavour."
The full approved paper regarding the review of the minor procedures regime and paraprofessional regulation can be found on the RCVS website at: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/policy/veterinary-legislation-review/
Veterinary nurses are required to carry out at least 45 hours of CPD over a rolling three year period.
The results of an audit to discover how many veterinary nurses were complying with this requirement were presented at VN Council last week.
As part of the audit, the RCVS requested the CPD records of 1,016 veterinary nurses, including:
a random selection of around 10% of the profession who declared they were compliant when they renewed their registration;
veterinary nurses who declared they were non-compliant upon renewing their registration;
veterinary nurses who took part in the previous year’s audit who were not compliant;
veterinary nurses whose records were requested in the previous year who did not respond.
939 nurses responded, of which 72% (672) were found to be compliant and 28% (267) were non-compliant.
Reasons given by respondents for their failure to comply include maternity leave, family commitments, lack of time or opportunity and illness.
Eight members of the profession had been included in a total of seven of the previous annual audits and, each time, were found to be non-compliant.
As a result, Council decided that any veterinary nurse who was audited and found to be non-compliant in three consecutive years should have their records sent to the CPD Referral Group, a subcommittee comprising members of RCVS and VN Council who review cases of CPD non-compliance for both vets and VNs.
The CPD Referral Group makes decisions on how to follow-up these cases including, in the most serious instances, referring individuals to the Preliminary Investigation Committee.
Racheal Marshall, Chair of VN Council, said: "It is disheartening that a substantial number and proportion of the profession still aren’t compliant and that this proportion has remained static for the last three years with the same reasons occurring year after year including family commitments and lack of time and opportunity.
"However, CPD need not be onerous or expensive and can be done from the comfort of your own practice or home, it could, for example, involve reading relevant clinical papers in a veterinary magazine or journal, reflection on your professional practice, in-house training, participation in webinars and research for presentations as well as organised courses, lectures and webinars. The key is that CPD should be relevant to you and your role and should keep your skills, knowledge and competences up-to-date to ensure that you are providing the best possible care to your patients and clients."
One way to accumulate hours towards your annual CPD requirement is to participate in discussions and read content on VetNurse.co.uk. Just press the 'Claim CPD' above the content, and you'll be able to record the time spent, what you learned and how you plan to put it into practice. The system also records a link to the content you were reading, so you'll be able to refer back to it again later. Then, when you need to submit your record to the RCVS, you can export a VetNurse CPD certificate with your accompanying notes for the selected time period.
For more information about the CPD requirement for both vets and vet nurses, what activities might count as CPD, how to record your CPD and a series of frequently asked questions about CPD please visit www.rcvs.org.uk/cpd.
The full results of the CPD audit can be found in the papers for the February 2019 meeting of VN Council: www.rcvs.org.uk/who-we-are/vn-council/vn-council-meetings/6-february-2019/
The RCVS's new Royal Charter has come into effect today, meaning that the whole of the veterinary nursing profession in the UK is now regulated.
The new Charter received the Great Seal of the Realm and was collected from the House of Lords by RCVS Registrar Gordon Hockey and Policy Consultant Jeff Gill (pictured right). It had previously been approved at a meeting of the Privy Council on 5 November 2014.
Under the changes instituted in the new Charter, there are no longer listed veterinary nurses and all those formerly on the List have effectively been moved to the Register and become RVNs.
As a result they will now be expected to undertake the minimum requirement for continuing professional development (CPD) of 45 hours over a three-year period, will need to follow the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses, and will be subject to the College’s disciplinary system in cases of serious professional misconduct. Any veterinary nurse removed or suspended from the Register will not be entitled to give medical treatment or carry out minor surgery.
Gordon said: “This is a proud day for us and an important day for the profession as a whole. We worked very hard to get to this point and I would like to thank all those who helped us along the way including RCVS and VN Council members, College staff and the members of the profession and representative organisations, in particular the BVA and BVNA, that responded to our consultation on the proposed Charter last year.
“This Charter clarifies the role of the College and its aims and objectives while also modernising many of our regulatory functions. This represents another significant step towards the College becoming a first rate regulator.
“Critically, this Charter fulfils one of our long-term ambitions to create a coherent regulatory system for veterinary nurses and to recognise them as true professionals, dedicated to their vocation, their development and proper conduct.”
During this year’s renewal period for veterinary nurses (in the autumn), those formerly on the List will be expected to confirm that they are undertaking CPD and will also need to disclose any criminal convictions, cautions or adverse findings when they renew their registration. The annual renewal fee for veterinary nurses remains unchanged.
A detailed set of frequently asked questions for former listed veterinary nurses can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/rvn.
The RCVS is to launch a new badge for registered veterinary nurses (RVNs) at the British Veterinary Nursing Association Congress later this week.
The launch ties in with the 50th anniversary of veterinary nurse training, and highlights the fact that RVNs, while qualified to the same level as their listed colleagues, stand apart because they additionally agree to account for their professional practice and keep their skills and knowledge up to date.
The non-statutory RCVS Register of Veterinary Nurses was introduced in 2007, and RVNs abide by a code of professional conduct, commit to continuing professional development and, from 1 April this year, can be taken to task via a disciplinary system.
The new badge builds upon the old version but with the word 'registered' underneath. Plans for a more dramatic departure from the existing badge were dropped when the College saw the affection in which veterinary nurses held the traditional antique silver and red-enamel badge, introduced in 1984.
Liz Branscombe, Chairman of the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council said: "There is currently no legislation to protect veterinary nurses' title and area of work, but we have not stood still and the Register shows a real commitment to developing our status as professionals. We need to ensure this commitment is recognised by clients and others in the veterinary team, and hope the new badge will make it easier to identify who is professionally accountable."
All those veterinary nurses qualifying since 2003 automatically became registered and those qualifying earlier could choose to do so. Currently there are 8,682 registered veterinary nurses, and 1,463 remain on the unregulated list.
The new badge will be presented to all those qualifying since 4 July 2011, and those registering earlier can purchase it for £15 (to cover the cost of the badge and engraving it with the RVN's individual number) up until the 31 January 2012. RVNs are under no obligation to purchase the new badge, although the College hopes that many will choose to do so to mark the step forward which the profession has made.
The Veterinary Nurses Council is developing proposals for statutory regulation to put to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Meanwhile, Roger Gale MP will host a reception at the House of Commons on 11 October to celebrate the first half-century of veterinary nursing, and raise awareness of the benefits for animals and their owners of legal recognition of veterinary nurses.
Veterinary nurses attending BVNA Congress in Kettering are encouraged to visit the RCVS stand in the gallery area to take part in a 50th anniversary quiz, collect their chocolate version of the new badge, and find out how to obtain the real thing. Liz Branscombe will also be making a presentation on Saturday 8 October about the new disciplinary system for registered veterinary nurses.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against a veterinary surgeon said to have been dishonest in claims made against insurance following a dog's veterinary treatment.
At the end of the four-day hearing, the Committee found Sheena Brimelow, formerly employed by Kinver Veterinary Practice in Kinver, Stourbridge, not guilty of charges relating to seven insurance claims submitted between 1 January 2008 and 1 October 2009. These related to her parent's dog, a Cairn terrier, which she had treated at her then employer's practice. Ms Brimelow admitted that she had submitted invoices with her claims showing the retail prices for several items, when she had paid the practice only the cost prices. She said that she had deleted records from the practice computer showing the retail prices so that the ingoings and outgoings in the practice finances were accurate.
The Committee considered whether Ms Brimelow had either behaved dishonestly or, in the alternative, ought to have known not to have included the sums she did in the insurance claims forms. The Committee found that Ms Brimelow was an honest and reliable witness. She had explained openly what she had done, entirely consistently, from the first time the allegations had been put to her by the practice owner. It noted that an insurance company representative also considered her actions to be "a genuine misunderstanding," although subsequently a complaint was made by the insurance company to the College about Ms Brimelow's actions. The Committee found there were no clear guidelines in the practice as to how staff insurance claims should be handled. It also felt that, as a result of the insurer's communications failures, it was not difficult to believe that Ms Brimelow was unaware of how claims concerning the insured pets of veterinary practice staff members were expected to be handled.
From the evidence presented in the hearing, the Committee calculated that Ms Brimelow had benefited by only £90.50. The Committee noted that she had offered to repay any monies to her employer or the insurer, and that the insurer's loss adjusters had thought this was a matter for Ms Brimelow and her employer. The College had also referred the matter to the police, who said it was not in the public interest to proceed with the matter, a decision they based on the low value of the loss and Ms Brimelow's offer to pay back the money.
Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "The Committee notes the reasons given by the police for undertaking no criminal investigation in this case, and agrees with that analysis. The Committee must apply the same standard of proof as would have been applied in a criminal case. In all the circumstances, the Committee is far short of being satisfied so that it is sure that Ms Brimelow acted dishonestly in this case."
"The Committee considers that [Ms Brimelow] was naïve and misguided in handling the insurance claims in the way that she did," he continued. "However, the Committee considers there was a lack of proper guidance within the practice as to how staff insurance claims should be handled. In these circumstances the Committee is not sure that the College has proved that the Respondent ought to have known that she should not have included sums on the claims form, which did not represent the costs that she had incurred."
Both elements of the charge were accordingly dismissed.
Nominations are now being sought for candidates to stand in the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Council and Veterinary Nurse Council (VN Council) elections. The deadline for nominations is 5pm on 31 January 2013.
Nick Stace, RCVS Chief Executive said: "Last year, a record number of veterinary surgeons showed by seeking a seat on RCVS Council that they were willing to help regulate their profession. The RCVS needs the efforts of willing vets and VNs to ensure that their professions continue to be well regulated. If you've thought about standing 'someday' - why not make someday now?"
There are six seats due to be filled on RCVS Council, and two on VN Council. Those elected will take their seats on RCVS Day next July, to serve four-year terms. Council members will be expected to spend at least six to eight days a year attending Council and Committee meetings, working parties and subcommittees (for which a loss-of-earnings allowance is available).
Each candidate needs to find two proposers; any veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse (who is not presently on either Council) may propose one candidate for RCVS or VN Council respectively.
Nomination forms, full instructions and guidance notes are available from www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil13 and www.rcvs.org.uk/vncouncil13.
For the first time this year the RCVS will organise a webinar-style hustings event for RCVS Council candidates during the election period. This will offer candidates the opportunity to outline his or her manifesto verbally in a live event, with an audio-only recording. It will not be compulsory for candidates to take part, although it is hoped that the event will enable candidates to make their points in a way that will engage a broader range of voters than the paper manifestos alone.
Dr Crespo appeared in front of the Disciplinary Committee earlier this week with two charges against her. The first was that, in November 2015, she dishonestly and falsely made an online representation to the College that she had no criminal convictions, cautions or adverse findings despite having been convicted, in January 2015, of failing to provide a specimen of breath. The second charge against her was that, in March 2016, she once again dishonestly and falsely failed to declare her conviction when renewing her registration.
During the hearing the Committee had two main considerations in respect of both charges – as to whether Dr Marin Crespo had been dishonest in failing to declare the conviction and as to whether the respondent ought to have known that her representations were false. Regarding the dishonesty element, the Committee found the College had not sufficiently proven this, as it accepted Dr Marin Crespo’s evidence that she did not believe she needed to declare a motoring-related offence as it was not relevant to her professional practice.
However, the Committee found it proven that the respondent ought to have known that the representations were false, taking into account that Dr Marin Crespo made admissions that she ought to have checked the guidance on declaring convictions, cautions and/or adverse findings and ought to have been aware that making such declarations is a requirement of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct.
Having found the parts of the two charges relating to false representation proven, the Committee then considered whether this constituted serious professional misconduct.
Judith Webb, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said:"The Committee considers that the false declarations made by the respondent were born of a careless disregard for the disclosure process. The Committee notes that the respondent could easily have checked online, and/or by telephone, as to what she was obliged to do when making the relevant declarations. She failed to do that.
"In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the respondent’s conduct fell far short of that which is to be expected of the veterinary profession. Therefore, in the judgement of the Committee, on the facts found proved, the respondent is guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
In considering Dr Marin Crespo’s sanction the Committee took into account a number of mitigating factors including her full cooperation with the College’s investigation, her hitherto unblemished career, her testimonial evidence which it felt demonstrated her dedication and professionalism, and the fact that she has displayed remorse and insight into her conduct.
Judith Webb concluded: "The Committee notes that the respondent’s conduct caused no harm, or risk of harm, to animals or humans. The Committee also notes that there is no charge arising out of the criminal conviction itself. The Committee considers that, if the respondent had answered the online questions correctly, it is unlikely that the respondent would have appeared before the Committee.
"Every veterinary surgeon must ensure that they adopt a careful and accurate approach to the self-certification exercise, which is crucial if the public and the College are to have trust in that process. In these circumstances, the Committee considered that the proportionate sanction in this case is that the respondent be… reprimanded for her conduct."
Freda Andrews, the Director of Education at the RCVS, has announced her retirement from the position on 2nd April after nearly 16 years at the College.
Freda joined the RCVS as Head of Education in September 1999 and became Director of Education in 2013, with strategic responsibility for both veterinary and veterinary nursing education.
Nick Stace, RCVS Chief Executive Officer, said: "We will miss Freda for her professionalism, her encyclopaedic knowledge of all things related to veterinary education and her attention to detail, but she leaves behind a team that is stronger-than-ever and a considerable legacy for the profession as a whole.
"Under her watch the Education Department has seen a significant number of achievements. This includes the introduction of the Professional Development Phase which has helped veterinary graduates develop their confidence and competence during the first few years of practice and the accreditation of the University of Nottingham's School of Veterinary Medicine and Science - the first new UK vet school in 50 years."
Freda's responsibilities as Director of Education will now be split between Christine Warman, Head of Education, and Julie Dugmore, Head of Veterinary Nursing.
Freda said: "I have really enjoyed working with such a fascinating profession and I think that through working very closely with our colleagues in the vet schools, as well as with practising vets, veterinary education has made some significant advances. For example, there is more focus now on communication and professional skills and greater alignment of accreditation standards internationally, to name but two things.
"I am sad to leave but I know that the future of veterinary and veterinary nursing education has been left in the very safe hands of Christine and Julie and their respective teams."
At its recent meeting (8 November), RCVS Council agreed to the new arrangements proposed by the RCVS Awarding Body, which manages the veterinary nurse training scheme. It means that candidates will be able to take their multiple-choice question examinations on computer at one of 150 managed test centres across the UK - from the Hebrides to the Channel Islands.
The facilities will be open to VNs for four weeks during the year (a fortnight during July and two one-week blocks in March and November).
The RCVS Awarding Body is working with a company specialising in e-assessment to develop the new system, which will allow for the rapid analysis of data and speedier processing of assessment results.
There will be some increases in examination fees - £15 for the Level 2 exam and £77 for the Level 3 exam. However practices with more than one student are less likely to need locum cover (students can attend exams on different days) and travel and potential accommodation costs will be lower.
"This new approach will be much more flexible for candidates," according to Chairman of the RCVS Awarding Body Management Board, Neil Smith. "Previously, everyone had to come to one of only a few RCVS exam centres on a specific day. Now they can choose a date, time and venue to suit themselves - most candidates will be within 20 miles of a test centre. This should not only be more convenient and less stressful for most candidates, but will also be easier for those practices with more than one candidate to manage cover."
This adds to an earlier decision (May 2007) that, from 2008, veterinary nursing practical examinations will be held four times a year instead of twice, and over three-day weekends instead of during the week. Again, the aim is to make assessment more user-friendly for both candidates and examiners. Portfolios now need to be 100% complete as a condition of enrolment for the practical exam, superseding than the previous 60% completion requirement.
Veterinary nurses who wish to remain on the RCVS Register/List of Veterinary Nurses are reminded that their renewal fees need to be paid to the College by 31 December 2014.
Letters have been sent to 938 registered/listed veterinary nurses whose fees are outstanding, reminding them that the annual renewal fee of £61 needs to be paid – and cleared – by the end of this year.
The renewal fee can be paid online via the ‘My Account’ area (www.rcvs.org.uk/login), using the login details which were sent to all listed/registered veterinary nurses in September.
As well as paying the fee, all veterinary nurses will need to confirm their registration details and correspondence address while registered veterinary nurses will need to declare any convictions, cautions and/or adverse findings and confirm they have complied with the RCVS continuing professional development requirement of 45 hours over a three-year period.
Any veterinary nurses who have not received their login details, or who have misplaced them, should contact the RCVS Registration Department by telephone on 020 7202 0707.
For payments made by cheque, the name of the veterinary nurse and the ID number included in the annual renewal letter needs to be written on the back. Cheques need to be received by the RCVS before Friday 19 December and the payment to have cleared by 31 December.
Veterinary nurses in need of further guidance on paying their annual renewal fee should contact the RCVS Finance Department on finance@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0723.
By becoming a Stonewall Diversity Champion, the RCVS joins over 750 other organisations who are striving to create workplaces that are equal, inclusive and accepting.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS Deputy CEO and Director of the Mind Matters Initiative, said: "We are delighted to be working with Stonewall and will benefit greatly from its expertise and energy. These may not be easy issues to tackle but we hope that this tie-up with Stonewall will, in itself, send a positive message of our intent to take the issues seriously and make the RCVS, and the veterinary profession at large, as inclusive as possible.
"There are three aspects to the work we plan: first, to ensure the RCVS is a welcoming and accepting employer by integrating inclusion and diversity into all aspects of our organisation; second, to review our policies and procedures around areas such as registration, to make sure that they take account of the diversity within the veterinary profession; and, finally, through our Mind Matters Initiative, we aim to work with our partners to develop inclusive workplaces throughout the veterinary profession. The ability to be oneself in the workplace has a big impact on mental health and wellbeing so it’s a core issue for Mind Matters."
The College says that the move to link up with Stonewall came about as a result of discussions with Mat Hennessey, President of the British Veterinary Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender group, who said: "We are extremely excited about the collaboration between the RCVS and Stonewall, and feel this positive move to culture equality and inclusivity will benefit the profession as a whole. Stonewall is the largest LGBT+ charity in the UK and Europe and thus has a wealth of knowledge and resources relating to LGBT+ issues. We look forward to continuing to work with both parties during this important venture."
Abby Crawford, Public Sector Client Manager at Stonewall, said: "We know that LGBT staff can face specific barriers in the workplace and it’s great that the RCVS has taken a strong commitment to LGBT equality in this way. We look forward to working with them to create more inclusive environments for their staff and service users – working towards a world where all lesbian, gay, bi and trans people are accepted without exception."
Mr Molnar had been convicted at Manchester and Salford Magistrates’ Court in March 2018 of five counts of importing puppies to the UK in contravention of the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and other Mammals) Order 1974.
At that court hearing he also pleaded guilty to one count of keeping premises as a pet shop without the authority of a licence granted by a local authority.
As a result of his conviction Mr Molnar was sentenced to 270 hours of unpaid supervised work and was ordered to pay compensation of £2,683.93 and costs of £250.
The Committee, which proceeded with the hearing in Mr Molnar’s absence, found that the RCVS charges against Mr Molnar were proven and went on to consider whether, individually and cumulatively, they resulted in Mr Molnar being unfit to practice being a veterinary surgeon.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee accepts the College’s submission that the fact that they [the puppies] were imported contrary to the law of the UK, because they were underage and had not been properly vaccinated, undermines the integrity of a system which is designed to ensure that effective vaccination and precautions against disease take place in every case.
"The Committee also notes that the convictions in this case were directly linked to the respondent’s veterinary practice, as they related to animals sold from his veterinary practice address. By operating an unlicensed pet shop, and by doing so through an email address that referred to his occupation as a veterinary surgeon, the respondent was abusing his position as a veterinary surgeon, and acting in a way that was liable to undermine the reputation of the profession."
The Committee therefore found that, because Mr Molnar’s conviction was directly linked to his veterinary practice and posed a substantial risk to animal welfare and public health, his conviction meant his conduct fell far short of what was expected of a professional.
In considering the sanction for Mr Molnar the Committee considered that, while he had no previous convictions or adverse professional findings against him, the case against him was very serious "because of the risk of serious harm both to animals and the public, as well as being for financial gain."
Ian Green said: "The Committee considered that the respondent, as a veterinary surgeon, must have known the serious implications and consequences of what he was doing by importing these puppies unlawfully. The public should expect to be able to trust a veterinary surgeon to ensure that his conduct does not put at risk the health of both animals and humans."
Mr Green added that the Committee felt that the only appropriate sanction was to direct the Registrar to remove Mr Molnar’s name from the Register.
The RCVS has written to 625 veterinary nurses whose names have been removed from the List of Veterinary Nurses (incorporating the Register) for non-payment of fees.
Receipts and (R)VN cards have been sent to those whose fees have been paid and whose names remain on the List/Register.
The College is asking VNs who have not received a receipt and (R)VN card for 2013 to check online to ensure they remain registered/listed, and to contact the RCVS if unclear about their status (www.rcvs.org.uk/registration/check-the-register-list).
Employers are also advised to check that the VNs they employ remain on the Register/List, as those who are neither listed nor registered are not legally permitted to carry out minor surgery or medical treatment under Schedule 3 to the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966. A list of VNs removed for non-payment is available from the RCVS website to assist with these checks.
Although the RCVS has written to the VNs who have been removed, it is likely that some of these nurses have not kept the RCVS informed about changes to their addresses. Consequently, these VNs may not receive letters, and may not have received the previous fee reminders sent by the RCVS.
The deadline for payment of fees to remain on the RCVS List of Veterinary Nurses was 1 November 2012, although the RCVS continued to accept fees until 31 December.
The RCVS is holding a session at the London Vet Show on Saturday 23rd October from 8:30am-9:30am to provide guidance and advice concerning the work the nursing team does in practice.
As the RCVS says, the recent Panorama programme "It shouldn't happen at a vets'" was a stark reminder of the importance of ensuring that all practice staff are working within the appropriate legal framework.
The session will answer such questions as:
Because of the early start, the RCVS is providing breakfast from 8:15am.
The RCVS says the session will be relevant for all members of the practice team, but that if you can't make the session, they will be on hand to discuss VN legislation on stand M26.
The RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council has celebrated the 50th anniversary of veterinary nursing at the House of Commons with a call for statutory regulation for the profession.
At a Golden Jubilee event hosted by Mr Roger Gale MP, Veterinary Nurses Council Chairman Liz Branscombe drew attention to the fact that there is no legal protection for the title 'veterinary nurse', despite qualified nurses playing "a unique role in the practice team".
This effectively means that anyone could work in a veterinary practice as a nurse, without taking the three- or four-year training required for Listed or Registered Veterinary Nurses.
Liz said: "We believe that the nation's animals and their owners deserve better than this. And it's not just a question of animal welfare: public health is at risk from the incorrect use of medicines - for example, the well documented development of antimicrobial resistance."
The Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 was put in place only five years after the introduction of veterinary nurse training and too soon to fully recognise the potential of veterinary nursing as a profession in its own right.
As an interim measure, the RCVS has put in place a non-statutory Register for Veterinary Nurses, to which 86% of eligible nurses have signed up. Registered Veterinary Nurses agree to follow a code of conduct, keep their skills and knowledge up to date and abide by a disciplinary system. However, it is not possible for the College to bar those removed from the Register for serious professional misconduct from working as a veterinary nurse.
The Register also does not address the misuse of the title 'veterinary nurse' by unqualified people.
Liz asked MPs present at the House of Commons reception to sign up to an Early Day Motion tabled by Andrew Rosindell MP, which calls for statutory regulation for the veterinary nursing profession.
Others are urged to sign a petition on the Government's website which has been mounted by the British Veterinary Nursing Association and is supported by the College and the British Veterinary Association: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/18700.
The issues are being considered by the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Legislation Working Party and the group's recommendations will feed into the wider work of the RCVS Legislation Working Party, which will be reporting to the Defra Minister of State in the summer of 2012 with proposals as to how statutory regulation could be provided for a range of veterinary services, including veterinary nursing.
RCVS Registrar, Eleanor Ferguson said: "Changes to the chapter of the supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct titled ‘Miscellaneous procedures: legal and ethical considerations’, specifically in regards to surgical artificial insemination in dogs, were discussed at a meeting of the Standards Committee on 30 January 2019.
"The proposed changes to the guidance were to clarify that surgical artificial insemination (AI) in dogs is prohibited by animal welfare legislation – specifically the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which prohibits mutilations. Prohibited procedures are defined as those which interfere with sensitive tissue or bone structure. Surgical AI in dogs is not one of the exemptions permitted within the Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007.
"Due to an unfortunate oversight, the guidance had not been updated following this legislative change, although, in the interim, the guidance still made it clear that surgical AI in dogs was unlikely to be in the animal’s best interests and could only be carried out and justified in very limited circumstances and for exceptional reasons.
"However, we apologise for the oversight, and as soon as the College was made aware that the guidance on surgical AI did not conform exactly with the legislation and regulations, a paper was prepared for the Standards Committee to consider as soon as possible and update the guidance accordingly.
"As always, if any members of the profession or the public have any questions about any aspect of our Code of Professional Conduct and supporting guidance, they are welcome to contact our Standards and Advice Team on advice@rcvs.org.uk."
Veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses will be able to try their hands at the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons code-cracking competition at the London Vet Show at Olympia on 24-25 November.
At the RCVS breakfast session on the Friday morning (8.30, part of the Business Stream), President Dr Jerry Davies will unlock the secrets of the proposed new Codes of Professional Conduct for vets and VNs.
To promote this breakfast session, the RCVS is inviting visitors to come to its stand (J90) to solve photo enigmas, using clues provided to decipher a series of words that appear in the proposed new Codes. The winner will be in line to receive a pair of super sleuthing video glasses.
VNs who missed BVNA Congress can also get their hands on a 50th anniversary commemorative chocolate medallion by visiting the RCVS stand.
Coffee and pastries will be served at the morning session on Friday - there's no need to book, just turn up.
The day-long courses, each running from 9.30-5:00pm, will cover: basic mental health awareness; HR employment regulations and the legal position; the role of the line manager in supporting someone with poor mental health; making reasonable adjustments; planning 'return to work'; and designing and putting in place wellbeing action plans.
The courses will be run by Connecting with People, a social enterprise that develops and delivers high-quality training to employees with healthcare or safeguarding responsibilities.
Helen Sanderson, former VPMA President and representative on the Mind Matters Initiative Taskforce, said: "If you do one thing this year for your team I strongly recommend it be attending one of these courses. It provided me with invaluable information in recognising stress and depression in a team, as well as giving useful tools and tips on how to discuss and handle situations. I would encourage anyone to attend."
Lizzie Lockett, Director of Mind Matters, added: "It has been wonderful to see the response from the veterinary profession to our mental health awareness training sessions, but we know that managers can face particular challenges in supporting their team's mental health. Meanwhile, line managers play a key role in whether or not someone feels comfortable discussing a mental health issue, goes on to seek help, and, ultimately, returns to the workforce.
"We therefore designed these courses to provide very practical information for those in managerial positions, covering legal requirements as well as how to implement wellbeing strategies for colleagues."
The courses, which are subsidised by Mind Matters and the VPMA, cost £80 for VPMA members and £120 for non-members.
To book a place, visit the Mind Matters Eventbrite page: www.rcvsmindmatters.eventbrite.com
The Codes were approved by RCVS Council and the Veterinary Nurses Council earlier this year, following a lengthy consultation and review process that began in 2009, and will replace the existing Guides to Professional Conduct.
The College says the new Codes are principles-based, easily accessible and, at 16 pages long compared to the 50-page Guides, much more concise. They bring the College's guidance into line with the codes of conduct of other regulatory bodies, and help to describe those professional responsibilities that are fundamental to veterinary surgeons' and veterinary nurses' practice.
To expand on and clarify these professional responsibilities, an additional 27 chapters of supporting guidance have been published on the RCVS website, which also consolidate and update all existing RCVS guidance for veterinary professionals.
Both Codes set out five principles of practice: professional competence; honesty and integrity; independence and impartiality; client confidentiality and trust; and, professional accountability.
The veterinary surgeons' Code features an update to the declaration made on admission to the profession and, for the first time, the veterinary nurses' Code includes a declaration to be made on professional registration.
Among the professional responsibilities introduced in the Codes are: mandatory recording of continuing professional development; a mandatory professional development phase for new veterinary surgeons and period of supervised practice for registered veterinary nurses (RVNs) returning to practice after a break; a Performance Protocol; and, notification to the RCVS of any matter that may affect fitness to practise, including convictions (although this will require further consideration by the College).
For the first time, mandatory clinical governance has been introduced, and minimum practice standards have also been incorporated, at equivalence to the core standards set out in the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme.
A pocket-sized hard copy of the Code will be posted to all vets and RVNs shortly, which will include references to where the supporting guidance and further information can be found on the RCVS website. The online versions - at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetcode and www.rcvs.org.uk/vncode - are fully searchable by keyword, and PDF versions will soon be available to download. A digital version is also being explored, to enable veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses to access the Codes and supporting guidance on smart phones and tablets.
Although only registered veterinary nurses have agreed to abide by the VN Code of Professional Conduct, the College hopes that all veterinary nurses will consider it a useful benchmark of professional standards.
Dr Jerry Davies, RCVS President, said: "I am delighted that this significant piece of work has come to fruition. The RCVS has shown that, despite aged legislation, the Codes will, through imaginative interpretation of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, ensure the public and their animals continue to receive the level of professional service they have come to expect from veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses in the UK."