View all veterinary jobs
14.5% (or 2,092) of veterinary nurses that are eligible to vote did so compared to 10.9% (1,435) last year. The previous record for a VN Council election was a 12.8% turnout.
For the two places available on VN Council one new member was elected and one existing member re-elected for four year terms. Andrea Jeffery was re-elected with 1,293 votes, while Susan Howarth was elected with 1,064 votes.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: "Congratulations to all those elected to RCVS Council and VN Council and thank you to all those who stood as candidates in both elections.
"We would especially like to thank Jerry Davies, Peter Jinman and Bradley Viner who are standing down from RCVS Council this year after deciding not to seek re-election, in addition to Chris Gray and Tom Witte for their contributions to RCVS Council and Marie Rippingale for her contribution to VN Council.
"Thank you also to all those who took the time to ask questions of our candidates and cast a vote. This year we made a concerted attempt to make it even easier for the electorate to vote, with secure links to the voting websites sent by email and regular email reminders to those who hadn’t yet voted. The fact that both record numbers and proportions of the professions voted this year is testament to our efforts to further increase engagement with veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.
"However, while we welcome these significant increases, we recognise that it is still a relatively small proportion of the profession voting in these elections and so will continue to think of new ways to engage with the professions not just at election time, but across our many activities."
All the successful candidates will take up their positions at RCVS Day – the College’s Annual General Meeting and Awards Day – on Friday 7 July 2017 at the Royal Institute of British Architects where the formal declaration of both election results will also take place.
The case against Jose Ignacio Messa MRCVS related to two heads of charge against him.
The first charge was that, on 13th September 2015, Mr Messa failed to provide adequate and appropriate care to Barney, a border collie. The second charge was that on 14th September 2015 Mr Messa failed to ensure adequate and appropriate on-going care for Barney after his examination of him, including failing to take sufficient steps to ensure that Barney was referred urgently to the care of a referral practice and failing to ensure there were adequate arrangements in place for his ongoing care.
Barney was presented to the Basingstoke practice where Mr Messa was employed having suffered a severe 'stick injury' to his jaw on 12th September.
The Committee heard that, on 13th September, Mr Messa re-examined Barney, administered medication and then discharged him to be cared for at home by his owners. During the examination the owners alerted Mr Messa to the condition of the skin on Barney’s neck, but the Committee heard Mr Messa had felt the area and reassured them it was not something to be concerned about.
The Committee heard that at some point on 13th September, after he was discharged, Barney developed a foetid smell from his mouth caused by an infection and the next day his owners went back to the practice because Barney’s condition had deteriorated – he was unable to walk and had laboured breathing.
On 14th September Mr Messa admitted and sedated Barney and examined him again, noting a hole in the side of his throat that was infected. He recommended referring Barney to a referral practice for further treatment, which was agreed by his owners.
The Committee heard that the referral practice was contacted by a veterinary nurse at the practice and that an appointment for 9am on 15th September 2015 was booked directly with the owner. It also heard that, during his time at Mr Messa’s practice, Barney did not receive intravenous fluids or any further antibiotics.
Barney’s owners said they met with Mr Messa again at around 5pm on 14th September when they came to collect Barney, this was disputed by Mr Messa, and the Committee were not satisfied so as to be sure that it had been Mr Messa who had met the owners and discharged Barney although the Committee found that all the witnesses had been honest and reliable.
Barney was admitted to the referral practice on 15th September but, as a result of sepsis, he suffered a cardiac arrest and died at 10.30pm.
In respect of the first charge the Committee concluded that, on 13th September, Mr Messa made only a rudimentary examination of Barney, and the absence of such basic clinical examination of the temperature, the respiration rate and the pulse of Barney was a failure on the part of Mr Messa and that, furthermore, he did not choose the best course of antibiotic treatment for the wound and infection.
In respect of the second charge Mr Messa admitted that he did not provide fluid therapy to Barney on 14th September before he was discharged.
With reference to the remaining aspects of the charge the Committee took into account the Code of Professional Conduct, particularly in respect of the need for veterinary surgeons to refer cases responsibly and the Code’s supporting guidance on referrals.
The Committee determined that, having delegated the arrangements of the referral to a veterinary nurse, Mr Messa made no attempts to follow up and ensure it was a same-day appointment when this would have better suited the severity of Barney’s condition. The Committee found that he was unaware of Barney’s location or of the time of the appointment and did not make provision for antibiotic or fluid therapy.
Having found the majority of the charges against Mr Messa proven, the Committee then considered whether this amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Disciplinary Committee member Stuart Drummond, who was chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "In the light of the facts found proved and considering that disgraceful conduct in a professional respect is that which is conduct falling far below that expected of a veterinary surgeon, the Committee had concluded that the heads of charge, when taken individually, or collectively, do fall below the standard expected.
"However, as a matter of judgement, the Committee did not conclude that Mr Messa’s conduct fell far below the requisite standard and therefore did not amount of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
"Whilst the Committee did not find Mr Messa’s actions fell far below the requisite standard, there were concerns expressed about several aspects of this case. There were a number of missed opportunities which occurred; in particular the Committee notes the failure of the care plan and to take adequate steps to ensure that the referral process has been timeously effected."
Stephen has been an elected member of RCVS Council since 2012, having previously been an appointed member of Council representing the Royal Veterinary College between 2001 and 2009.
In 2016 he was re-elected to Council to serve a further four-year term and currently chairs the Legislation Working Party.
Stephen graduated from Cambridge in 1980 and subsequently spent time as a large animal practitioner. After undertaking further training in equine surgery and diagnostic imaging at the University of Liverpool, he studied for a PhD at the Royal Veterinary College (RVC) before returning to Liverpool as a Lecturer in Equine Orthopaedics.
He went back to the RVC in 1993 to concentrate on equine clinical services and, in 1997, became Head of the Farm Animal and Equine Clinical Department. He was appointed the RVC’s Vice-Principal for Teaching from 2000 to 2013, Deputy Principal from 2013 to 2017 and currently holds the post of Senior Vice-Principal.
Addressing the need for a learning culture in his speech Stephen said: "Veterinary graduates have never had greater knowledge and technical skills than those graduating this year. But this can make their job so much harder when the certainty of scientific knowledge is confronted with the uncertainties of the sick animal, and the increasing number of possibilities for treatment have to be weighted alongside ethical and economic considerations.
"Of his age, but also prophetic of our age, the philosopher Bertrand Russell commented that 'habits of thought cannot change as quickly as techniques with the result that as skill increases, wisdom fails'.
"So it is important that our young professionals are well-prepared in terms of professional, non-technical skills to cope with the sheer variety of challenges that they encounter, and we, as a profession, within our professional model, provide a nurturing learning culture rather than the blame and cover-up culture that the current emphasis on external regulation fosters, so pervasively and distressingly."
Stephen added that his other priorities would be working with the British Veterinary Association and other stakeholders to uphold the College’s first Brexit principle that 'vital veterinary work continues to get done', a project on graduate outcomes, which flows from the Vet Futures project, and the Legislation Working Party.
Dr Westwood, who now lives in Australia, had been referred to the Committee in relation to a number of charges against him relating to the treatment of a cat at his former practice in Cardiff in October 2015.
He was not present at the inquiry and had requested that his solicitor, Tony Wilson, act on his behalf.
Mr Wilson made an application to the Committee that the hearing should be adjourned contingent on a form of undertakings being accepted. These undertakings were that Dr Westwood’s name be removed from the Register with immediate effect and that he never apply to be restored to the Register under any category.
The application was granted by the Committee, taking into account a number of factors. These included the fact that Dr Westwood has retired as a veterinary surgeon, that he has closed his practice and returned to his home in Australia with no intention of returning to the UK, and that animal welfare and the reputation of the profession have been protected as Dr Westwood will no longer be in practice.
The Committee noted that there were several precedents for concluding cases in such a manner, and that the application was not objected to by the complainant or opposed by the College.
Dr Westwood’s name was removed from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons with immediate effect as of Monday 14 August 2017.
Mr Fioletti was found guilty of the murder of Stephanie Hodgkinson at Bournemouth Crown Court in January, and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum 15 years.
The hearing for Dr Fioletti took place on Thursday 6 June, with the Committee deciding to proceed in his absence after Dr Fioletti said in correspondence that he did not want to attend the hearing nor be otherwise represented.
The Committee found the facts of the case proven by the certificate of conviction and went on to consider whether the conviction rendered Dr Fioletti unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
Aggravating factors in terms of fitness to practise included the fact that it was an offence involving violence and loss of life and the injuries caused by Dr Fioletti to Ms Hodgkinson.
The sentencing remarks, which were cited during the disciplinary hearing, also made clear the devastating impact that Dr Fioletti’s actions had on Ms Hodgkinson’s family, including her two young children.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee considers that, when consideration is given to the ferocity of the attack on Ms Hodgkinson and the number of stab wounds she suffered, when taken together with the finding by the sentencing judge, who presided over the trial, that the respondent “represent[ed] a significant danger to any female with whom you find yourself in a relationship”, members of the public would find it abhorrent for a veterinary surgeon to have acted in this way and would be concerned at the risk the respondent posed to some members of the public.
“This Committee considers that the offence of murder is so inherently deplorable and shocking that it must constitute conduct falling far short of that to be expected of a member of the profession; and is certainly liable to bring the profession into serious disrepute and undermine public confidence in the profession.”
The Committee then went on to consider the most appropriate and proportionate sanction for Dr Fioletti.
In terms of the aggravating factors in this case, Mr Morris said: “The misconduct in this case relates to a savage, sustained and ferocious attack with a weapon on a defenceless woman in her own home.
"His victim trusted him to be in her home.
"He knew that she was the mother of two young sons, of whom she had custody, and to whom he knew she was devoted.
"He would have known that the effect of his attack on her would have devastating consequences for her sons and her other close relatives – and it did.
"This conduct constitutes disgraceful conduct of the most egregious and reprehensible kind.
“The Committee also considers that the misconduct raises serious concerns about the reputation of the profession in the eyes of right-thinking members of the public.
"This was abusive and controlling conduct of the worst kind and conduct of which the respondent had been guilty of in past relationships, as the sentencing judge found.
"Such acts by their very nature run contrary to the very essence of the practice of the profession of veterinary surgery, which is intended to protect and enhance the welfare and well-being of animals and of work colleagues.”
In mitigation the Committee noted that Dr Fioletti had no previous criminal history and had a hitherto unblemished career as a veterinary surgeon.
The Committee found that only complete removal from the Register was appropriate in this case.
Paul added: “The Committee has reached the conclusion that the respondent’s behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon.
"The respondent’s behaviour was so serious that removal of professional status and the rights and privileges accorded to that status is considered to be the only means of protecting the wider public interest and of maintaining confidence in the profession.”
The Committee expressed its condolences to the family of Stephanie Hodgkinson for their incalculable loss.
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
Dr Thomason initially denied both heads of charge, but on the third day of the hearing he changed his plea and admitted the charge in its entirety.
The first part of the charge related to the fact that the seller of the horse was a both a client of Dr Thomason’s practice and a personal friend of his, and he therefore had a potential and/or actual conflict of interest.
Dr Thomason did not disclose this professional and personal relationship to the prospective purchaser before the pre-purchase exam.
The prospective purchaser only discovered Dr Thomason’s relationship with the seller when reading the vetting certificate at home, and stated that, in the past, she had had a similar experience in which the horse was then found to be lame. She later found out the extent of the personal relationship, when invited to join the seller on a social media site.
The Committee found that, in this set of circumstances, Dr Thomason should not have undertaken the pre-purchase exam at all, and, at the very least, disclosed his personal and professional relationship with the vendor.
The Committee also found that although Dr Thomason did have a system in place to inform any prospective purchasers if the vendor was a client of his practice, this failed to work on this occasion and neither the practice nor Dr Thomason told the prospective buyer that the seller was a client before booking the pre-purchase exam. Dr Thomason had no similar system in place to disclose any close friendships with sellers.
Dr Thomason did not consider there was a conflict of interest as he felt confident he could carry out the pre-purchase exam impartially. In addition, it was his belief that the seller had been alerted to the conflict through a system in place at his practice, implemented to safeguard against this type of error. He stated that he in no way attempted to hide his relationship with the seller to the prospective purchaser.
It was not alleged that Dr Thomason had acted dishonestly.
Ultimately, the Committee found Dr Thomason not guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "Whilst the Committee concluded that the respondent’s view of his obligations to disclose both the professional and personal relationships he had with the vendor was mistaken, it did not find any improper motivation on his part. It has already noted that he sought to disclose to the prospective purchaser through his system the fact that the vendor was a professional client of his.
"The Committee has weighed all these matters very carefully. It is for the client to determine whether or not to proceed with a PPE when in possession of all relevant facts in relation to any potential conflict of interest, and not for the veterinary surgeon to decide. The autonomy of the client must be respected. The Committee was firmly of the opinion that a failure to comply with the Code is very serious. However, taking into account the particulars of this case, the Committee does not consider that the actions of the respondent amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
Mr Wood was convicted of three offences which involved the download of 38 videos and 13 indecent images of children, at Portsmouth Magistrates’ Court in December 2017.
In January 2018, he was sentenced to a three-year Community Sentence for each offence, to run concurrently, and was made subject to a five-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order.
He was also fined £1,000 and ordered to pay costs of £340 and a victim surcharge of £85.
Mr Wood was also placed on the barring list by the Disclosure and Barring Service and required to register with the police pursuant to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for a period of five years.
Mr Wood appeared before the Disciplinary Committee, admitted his conviction and accepted that it rendered him unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
In determining the sanction, the Committee says it took into account a number of mitigating factors: his conviction involved no actual harm or risk of harm to an animal; there was no financial gain; he had engaged in open and frank admissions at an early stage; he was experiencing mental ill-health at the time of the offence; he had taken subsequent steps to avoid a repetition of such behaviour; there had been a significant lapse of time since the incident; and he showed insight into the harm caused by his offence.
The Committee also considered that the purpose of a sanction is not to punish, but to protect the welfare of animals, as well as maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct. On consideration of the appropriate sanction, the Committee decided that postponement of judgement was not appropriate, and that taking no action was not an option.
The Committee then considered whether a reprimand or warning was appropriate, but they considered that would not match the gravity of the offence – a period of suspension would also mean Mr Wood would automatically return to the Register after the period of time without the College being able to review his fitness to practise, rendering it an inappropriate sanction. The Committee therefore determined that the removal of Mr Wood from the RCVS Register was the only way to protect the wider public interest and maintain confidence in the profession.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee has not taken this decision lightly, and, lest it be misinterpreted, it has not taken it in order to satisfy any notional public demand for blame and punishment.
"It has taken the decision because in its perception, the reputation of the profession had to be at the forefront of its thinking and ultimately it was more important than the interests of the Respondent.
"The decision is not simply based on the fact that these offences were of a sexual nature but because they were repeated frequently over a significant period of time, and at the time, the Respondent knew on his own admission that what he was doing was wrong.
"Accordingly, the Committee had decided that removal from the Register is appropriate and proportionate in this case. The Committee will direct the Registrar to remove the Respondent’s name from the Register forthwith."
Mr Wood has 28 days to appeal the Committee’s decision after which, if no appeal is received, the Committee’s judgment takes effect.
Would-be candidates in the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeon Council and Veterinary Nurse Council elections are reminded that the nominations deadline is 5pm on 31 January 2013.
Veterinary surgeons need two nominations from veterinary surgeons, and veterinary nurses two nominations from veterinary nurses, to stand in the respective elections.
Veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses not presently on either Council can nominate one candidate each.
Nomination forms, full instructions and guidance notes are available from www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil13 and www.rcvs.org.uk/vncouncil13.
Six seats are 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).
The RCVS has issued a summary of the key decisions made at the June Council meeting.
The summary is below, but for those who prefer, Nick Stace has done a four-minute piece to camera:
24/7 & PostnominalsCouncil agreed in principal to changes to the supporting guidance of the Code of Professional Conduct regarding 24/7 emergency care and to put the brakes on a decision regarding the removal of all postnominals from the RCVS Register of Members.
AccountsAlso at the meeting, Council agreed to the 2013 Annual Report and Financial Statements, which is this year in a new format - the Statement of Recommended Practice, Accounting and Reporting by Charities (SORP 2005) - on the recommendation of the Audit and Risk Committee. The Annual Report will be available to download shortly (www.rcvs.org.uk/publications).
In addition, Council agreed a freeze on retention fees for both veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses for 2015 - the fifth year in a row, and an effective decrease over this period of over £40 for veterinary surgeons.
CharterCouncil also agreed to an amended version of the proposed new Royal Charter, which will now go to the AGM on 11 July 2014 for endorsement by members. The updated text, together with an explanation of the changes, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/newcharter.
Governance reviewNearly a year on from the introduction of the new Operational Board and other governance changes designed to streamline decision-making, Council took the opportunity to review how this new structure was working. It agreed that, going forward, the Operational Board would appoint members of all committees and that papers for Council meetings should include minutes of all committee meetings.
Council also agreed that the Operational Board should take responsibly for registration matters, which are currently within the remit of the Standards Committee. Terms of reference for the Audit and Risk, Specialist Recognition Appeals and Standards Committees will be revised. Whether the Education Committee should be responsible for all decisions on the recognition of registerable degrees (as opposed to Council in its entirety) will be discussed further at the November meeting of Council.
Registration RegulationsThe planned discussion on updated Registration Regulations was postponed until the November meeting, as feedback is awaited from the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).
Alternative dispute resolutionCouncil agreed to the trial of an alternative dispute resolution service to start before the end of the year. The service will help the College to deal with complaints which, while they do not give rise to issues of serious professional misconduct, may have some substance. The trial will be carried out with Ombudsman Services and will focus on concerns relating to small animals received by the Professional Conduct Department. It will be limited to no more than 150 cases at a cost not to exceed £120,000.
Risk RegisterCouncil discussed and approved an updated Risk Register. The Risk Register is confidential.
Practice Standard Scheme updateCouncil gave approval for the general direction of travel of the review of the Practice Standards Scheme, including a new modular framework; an IT system that would be available to all practices, not just those in the Scheme; new training and assessment for inspectors; and increased practice fees to cover these developments.
Also at the meeting, Amanda Boag was elected Treasurer, a post she will take up at RCVS Day on 11 July.
Reports were also presented from the Audit and Risk, Education, Preliminary Investigation and Disciplinary Liaison, Standards, Preliminary Investigation and Disciplinary Committees, and the Veterinary Nurses Council.
Finally, on behalf of Council, President Neil Smith gave thanks to retiring Council members Christine Shield, Peter Robinson, Clare Tapsfield-Wright and Caroline Freedman, also thanking Peter Lees, in his absence.
More detail about these topics, and other issues discussed at Council, will be available in the minutes in due course. The papers for the Council meeting can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/about-us/rcvs-council/council-meetings/5-june-2014.
See also the June issue of RCVS News, which can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk/publications shortly.
The RCVS has published new guidance for veterinary surgeons on 24-hour emergency first aid and pain relief, providing greater definition of the professional and legal responsibilities of veterinary surgeons in the provision of emergency care, as well as owners' responsibilities for their animals.
Two sections of the supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct have been updated - Chapter 2 'Veterinary care' and Chapter 3 '24-hour emergency first aid and pain relief' - placing a greater emphasis on owners' legal responsibilities for their animals while obligating veterinary surgeons to provide full details of their 24-hour emergency cover provision to clients.
Although veterinary surgeons are professionally obliged to take steps to provide 24-hour emergency first aid and pain relief, the new supporting guidance clarifies situations where delaying or declining attendance to an animal may be appropriate. It is hoped this will assist and empower vets to decline to attend an animal away from practice where they feel it is unnecessary or unsafe.
The changes are the culmination of an evidence-gathering process with both members of the profession and animal owners about each group's expectations around the provision of 24-hour emergency care.
This process began with a call for evidence at the end of 2013, which garnered some 656 pages of written evidence, as well as a petition on home visits with over 2,800 signatures. Following this, in March 2014 there was a three-day hearing in which 15 organisations and 10 individuals were invited to attend to give evidence to the RCVS Standards Committee. Also taken into account were more than 1,000 responses from veterinary surgeons taking part in the Survey of the Professions and an online survey with 1,250 animal owners.
After a thorough review of the evidence the Standards Committee developed the new supporting guidance, which was agreed in principle by RCVS Council in its June meeting.
Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar, said: "Following the considerable disquiet within the profession following the Disciplinary Committee's decision on the Chikosi hearing in June 2013, we decided that only a thorough evidence-gathering process with all parties could resolve the apparent gap between the expectation of the public regarding 24-hour emergency care and the profession's ability to meet this.
"We are very happy with the way that this process was carried out and would like to thank the many individual veterinary surgeons and animal owners, as well as representative organisations, who have contributed to this outcome.
"By making the legal and professional obligations of veterinary surgeons and the welfare obligations of animal owners clearer we hope that this new guidance should allay some of the frustrations and concerns of the profession."
The new supporting guidance for Chapter 3 '24-hour emergency first aid and pain relief' can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/247care, while the additional guidance for Chapter 2 'Veterinary care' can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetcare
A webinar in which Gordon Hockey and Clare Tapsfield-Wright, former Chairman of Standards Committee, explain the guidance in greater detail takes place at 8.30pm tonight.
Visit www.thewebinarvet.com/rcvs to register.
The outreach programme began earlier this month at the Devon County Show (pictured right), where the College used the opportunity to spread the word about its petsneedvets campaign, handing out over 1000 promotional bags in the process.
Next on the itinerary is the Royal Welsh Show near Builth Wells from the 23rd to 26th July. From there, the College will be heading to the BBC Countryfile Live event, held in the grounds of Blenheim Palace in Oxfordshire from the 2nd to 5th August.
Ian Holloway, Director of Communications at the RCVS, said: "Following the success and popularity of our stand at Countryfile Live over the past two years we decided that this year we would broaden our horizons and attend some of the UK’s most prestigious and well-attended regional events.
"We have our ever-popular careers materials available, and it was wonderful to see dozens of young people at the Devon County Show asking us about how they can become veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses, as they always have the past two years at Countryfile. This is a really encouraging level of interest in the professions and we’re very happy to provide information to help them fulfil their aspirations.
"Attending more and different public events is a trend we are very keen on continuing with and we will be looking at other events to attend in different parts of the UK for next year."
For more information about upcoming events involving the RCVS visit www.rcvs.org.uk/events
Photo: Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
The RCVS is to embark on a communications campaign over the next few months to raise awareness amongst the general public of the difficulties that vets face in providing out-of-hours emergency cover, and the responsibilities incumbent on animal owners to know what to do in a veterinary emergency.
Emergency cover has been high on the College's agenda for some time.
Over the last 18 months, the RCVS 24/7 Working Party has considered the ongoing desire of vets to continue to offer emergency care 24 hours a day, and the feasibility of delivering this, against a backdrop of the Working Time Regulations, geographical variations in animal and vet density, and increasing practice diversity.
Working Party meetings have been supported by a survey of how vets are currently meeting their 24/7 requirements, a seminar of stakeholders and regular informal polls at RCVS Question Time meetings.
It was agreed at the September 2009 meeting of Advisory Committee, to which the Working Party reports, that the majority of vets remain willing to deliver emergency cover 24/7. Advisory Committee recommended that a communications project be undertaken to help raise awareness amongst the general public and animal owners that although the veterinary profession continues to make this voluntary commitment, EU rules, geography and financial constraints impose some limitations.
This campaign will kick off soon and focus on spreading messages via animal-owner publications and websites. The responsibility of pet owners to know how they can access emergency care for their animal in advance of need will be stressed, as will the fact that in the absence of an NHS for pets, emergency care is a service for which practices must charge a realistic fee (which is likely to be higher than for day-time work).
The campaign will also outline vets' responsibilities as part of the Guide, so the public knows what it can reasonably expect. It would be helpful if practices could ensure they have clear information available on their 24/7 arrangements - as outlined in the Guide - should this campaign stimulate requests from clients.
Jerry Davies, who chaired the Working Party, said: "There is overwhelming opinion within the profession that we must continue to provide round-the-clock veterinary care. The main tenet of the Working Time Regulations is that workers should not have their health or, importantly, skills compromised by unreasonable working patterns. Vets, VNs and the animals they care for deserve the same level of protection.
"However, this legislation has made continuing to provide such care at a reasonable cost to the animal owner a significant challenge. Meeting this challenge will require the understanding and cooperation of the animal owning public.
"If clients can be flexible and accept slightly longer response times, an effective service can still be sustained. The key is for all animal owners to establish, in advance, exactly what will be involved should they need to access veterinary care in an emergency. This simple step will help optimise response times and eliminate the frustration, confusion and inevitable dissatisfaction that may arise if ill-prepared."
Amir Kashiv faced a charge of being unfit to practise veterinary surgery after twice being found guilty of letting dogs roam freely on public highways or land not owned or controlled by him in Peterborough Magistrates’ Court, once on 20 April 2016 and once on 16 November 2016, and by having repeatedly breached court orders in relation to the same.
Dr Kashiv admitted the convictions, but denied that individually or in any combination they rendered him unit to practise veterinary surgery. This was therefore left to the judgement of the Committee.
In considering whether the convictions rendered Dr Kashiv unfit for practice, the Committee first considered the facts of the convictions.
Dr Kashiv had long taken in house dogs with physical and behavioural problems, at some stages having as many as 30 on his property. In 2014 neighbours became concerned by dogs escaping and noise nuisances, and on 14 November 2014 Dr Kashiv was served by the Police with a Warning Notice, requiring him to install adequate fencing within 28 days.
Four days later he was then served with an Abatement Notice for a Noise Nuisance about the dogs, and on 10 January 2015 he was then served with a Community Protection Notice requiring him to stop his dogs roaming and ensure adequate fencing.
After multiple subsequent escapes Dr Kashiv pleaded guilty of being in breach of the Community Protection Order at the Magistrates’ Court on 20 April 2016, receiving penalties amounting to £5,000 and costs of £6,000, as well as a two year Criminal Behaviour Order requiring him to reduce the number of dogs to no more than five with 28 days, and requiring his dogs to be supervised at all times while they were outside the house.
Two months later one of the dogs was seen outside the property, resulting in another conviction for breach of the Criminal Behaviour Order on 16 November 2016, and Dr Kashiv was fined £250 as well as £250 in costs.
The Committee then considered whether this resulted in Dr Kashiv being unfit to practise veterinary surgery. It considered it a serious matter that a veterinary surgeon should allow himself to be made subject to a Warning Notice, and that, being subject to such a Notice, he should then be found in repeated breach of the Notice and invite prosecution. While the Committee accepts that it is difficult to fence his entire grounds, ten acres in total, the Committee took it as a mark against Dr Kashiv that he failed to address the concerns of the authorities by reducing the number of dogs he housed until he was compelled to do so.
Jane Downes, who was chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee regards this as a case close to borderline. These offences, involving the mismanagement by a veterinary surgeon of his animals and repeated offences demonstrate that Dr Kashiv had a less than adequate insight in 2014 and 2015 into the seriousness of the situation or into the understandable concerns of his neighbours and of the authorities. They are capable of bringing the profession into disrepute so as to undermine public confidence in it.
"But, in the end, The Committee has concluded that Dr Kashiv is not unfit by reason of these convictions to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
"It is apparent from the material before the Committee that Dr Kashiv is a dedicated veterinary surgeon whose life’s work has been devoted to the welfare of small animals and who has gone to extraordinary lengths, at his own expense, to do all that he possibly could to alleviate the suffering of, and rehabilitate, unloved and abandoned and unwell dogs.
"In all the circumstances and in the light of all the evidence the Committee finds that the convictions, whether taken individually or in any combination, do not render Dr Kashiv unfit to practice veterinary surgery."
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Council and the Veterinary Nursing Council have decided that there will be no increase in registration and retention fees for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses for 2012.
Last year, the Councils decided that a lower than inflation increase should apply to fees for 2011 to help mitigate the impact of the difficult economic climate on veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses. Members who are over 70 and who cease practising do not have to pay fees if they wish to remain on the Register.
Bradley Viner, RCVS Treasurer said: "We know times are tough financially for many people and hope that freezing fees will help a little. Professional regulation can be costly, but we try to keep fees as low as possible."
The RCVS financial policy remains that fee increases should be small and incremental in order to avoid a need for periodic sharp fee hikes resulting from inflationary pressures.
Fees for 2012 will be as follows:
2012 fees (£)
Veterinary surgeons
UK-practising retention fee
299
Overseas-practising retention fee
150
Non-practising retention fee
49
Non-practising retention fee (over 70 years old)
0
Registration fee
Temporary registration fee
Restoration fee
Restoration fee following voluntary removal
75
Veterinary nurses
Retention fee
61
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has announced that Nick Stace has been appointed its Chief Executive and Secretary, and will take up his post on 3 September 2012.
Mr Stace leaves CHOICE, Australia's equivalent of consumer group Which?, after three and a half years as Chief Executive Officer. At CHOICE, Nick led the modernisation of the organisation, this year taking it to the number one spot as the most trusted media entity in Australia. A long-standing consumer champion, Nick also held the post of Deputy CEO at Which?, he was a director at Consumers' International and former Prime Minister Gordon Brown's Director of Strategic Communications.
RCVS President Jerry Davies said: "I am delighted that Nick Stace will be joining the College. With his impressive track-record, I believe that we have a Chief Executive who will lead the College into a new phase of modernisation and development. I am grateful to the Interview Panel, led by Council member Dr Barry Johnson, for all their hard work in securing this excellent appointment."
Nick Stace said: "It is an enormous privilege to be leading an organisation that seeks to ensure Britain has the best vets in the world. The College has a special place in the lives of every vet in the country, it also has a responsibility to animals and consumers to set high standards and ensure they are met. I look forward to helping the College continue to improve veterinary standards across the country and to lead the College through its next stage of development."
The role of Chief Executive and Secretary is a new one - previously the Registrar led the executive of the College. One of Nick Stace's first tasks will be to assist in recruitment of the Head of Legal Services/Registrar, a new role.
The nurse was suspended from the Register for three months after admitting dishonesty over a dog's bile acid stimulation test, falsely saying she had taken a second blood sample when she had not.
She also admitted removing blood from the first sample and presenting and/or labelling it as if it were a second sample, falsely telling colleagues that the second sample had been taken, and falsely saying a veterinary nurse colleague had assisted her.
She also admitted a second charge that she had been dishonest and misleading.
The Committee said the conduct breached the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses on honesty, integrity, trust and accountability.
It found aggravating factors including a risk of harm to the dog, breaches of employer and colleague trust, false implication of a colleague in the dishonesty, and repeated misconduct.
In mitigation, it said there had been no actual harm to the dog.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "All the charges found proved involved not only misleading statements or behaviour but also dishonesty.
"On three occasions the respondent lied to her colleague about having taken a second blood sample.... BAST is an important test of liver function.
"Such behaviour struck at the heart of the profession of an RVN where honesty is crucial in the undertaking of professional work and is a fundamental tenet of the profession.
"The respondent breached the trust of her colleague as well as her employer's trust, and had the potential to interfere in the care which was being given to the dog... thereby creating a clinical risk, because the correct procedure was not being carried out, and the veterinary surgeon did not know about this.
"The Respondent did not act in the dog's interests."
In deciding sanction, the Committee considered a medical report on the nurse's ill-health at the time, along with mitigating factors including no financial gain, limited opportunity for reflection, insight and remorse, positive testimonials, admissions, a previously unblemished career, and the fact the dishonesty was confined to a single day.
It also said the dishonesty was not premeditated, but arose after she had mistakenly fed the dog when she should not have, meaning the second blood sample should not then have been taken.
Paul added: "The respondent has insight into her conduct and as set out above, there is no real risk of repetition.
"There are no concerns about the respondent's competence or clinical practice in general, and there is no evidence that she would be unfit to return to practice after a period of suspension.
"This process has been a salutary lesson.
"The Committee, therefore, concluded that a period of suspension of three months would be proportionate in this case."
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/veterinary-professionals/conduct-and-guidance/concerns-for-veterinary-professionals/disciplinary-committee-hearings
Ed's note: I've always reported disciplinary hearing results on the basis that like aircraft accident crash reports, they often provide a lesson others can learn from. It's also important for judgments to be scrutinised. But on reflection, I've decided to stop reporting names - on the basis that it doesn't really add anything except further ignominy on the person who's already paid their penalty.
The RCVS has launched a new animated video to help promote Practice Standards Scheme (PSS) accredited practices to the public, and explain the benefits of the scheme.
Launched in 2005, almost 60% of practices are now part of the PSS, which requires them to submit to a rigorous inspection every four years and meet a stringent standards across a wide range of areas including cleanliness and hygiene, facilities and equipment, staff training and development and customer service. Practices may also be subject to spot-checks between inspections.
Jacqui Molyneux, who heads up the RCVS Practice Standards Group said: “Our new video is a light-hearted explanation of the Practice Standards Scheme, how it can help animal owners decide which practice to go to and reassure them about the standards they can expect to find at an RCVS-accredited practice.”
The College says a similar version of the video will soon be available for RCVS-accredited practices to show to their clients, either on their own websites and social media channels, or in the waiting room.
Jacqui said: “Not only do we want to spread the word about the benefits of the Practice Standards Scheme and suggest animal owners look for the RCVS-accredited practice logo, but we also want to give accredited practices an engaging way of telling their clients about their achievement.
“Gaining RCVS accreditation is not easy, so accredited practices deserve every opportunity to demonstrate to their clients their commitment to supporting high standards of veterinary care. This fun two-minute video should help them do just that.”
Animal owners can search for an RCVS-accredited practice in their area, or elsewhere in the UK, using Find A Vet – the College’s online search tool – at www.findavet.org.uk.
The RCVS and VN Councils have each agreed to raise registration and retention fees for the financial year 2011-12 by 2%. This means the annual retention fee for a home-practising veterinary surgeon will increase by £5, and the fee for a veterinary nurse, by £1.
To encourage members who cease to practise to request removal from the Register, rather than simply allow their membership to lapse, the fee for restoration following voluntary removal will be reduced by almost 50%, from £147 to £75.
All fees for the current financial year were, exceptionally, frozen to help mitigate the impact of the difficult economic climate on the veterinary profession. The increases agreed for 2011-12 are below current inflation figures, and in line with the RCVS financial policy of introducing small fee increases on an incremental basis in order to avoid sharp fee hikes resulting from inflationary pressures.
A list of the new fees can be found in the June edition of RCVS News, also available online at www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvsnews.
The first charge was that in April 2016, having examined a horse named Alfie on behalf of his owner, Mr Villar gave an opinion to the potential buyers but failed to make it clear that he had not undertaken a pre-purchase examination; failed to declare to the buyer that he had a conflict of interest with regard to the owner; and, failed to explain the pre-purchase examination process to the buyers.
The second charge was that, in July 2016, during a telephone conversation with the buyer, Mr Villar was dishonest and failed to provide clear and accurate information because he told the buyers that he had only been asked to trot Alfie to check he was sound when he had, in fact, carried out a more substantial examination.
The third charge was that Mr Villar had offered to either the owner or the buyer, or both, that he would prepare a veterinary insurance certificate in relation to Alfie when he knew he did not have sufficient records (eg the microchip or passport number) to do so.
The fourth charge was that Mr Villar failed to respond adequately to communications from the buyers about Alfie.
The Committee found that Mr Villar had not in fact carried out a pre purchase examination (“PPE”) and referred to guidance from the British Equine Veterinary Association which identified that pre-purchase examinations are carried out on behalf of buyers. It noted that in this case, Mr Villar had undertaken an examination on behalf of the owner. Accordingly, it did not find that Mr Villar had failed to explain the PPE process to the potential buyers.
However, the Committee did find that Mr Villar had failed to declare that he had a conflict of interest in regards to Alfie’s owner. The Committee said that Mr Villar should have told the buyer that he had been acting on behalf of the owner and was not a neutral party in the potential sale.
The Committee found all aspects of the second charge not proven, on the basis that it was not satisfied so as to be sure that Mr Villar had told the potential buyers that he had only been asked to trot Alfie and check that he was sound.
The Committee found all aspects of the third charge proven on the basis that, in an email sent to the College in March 2016, Mr Villar admitted that he did not have the sufficient records to prepare a veterinary insurance certificate.
The Committee found the fourth charge not proven on the basis that the buyers were not his clients. The Committee therefore concluded that he had no obligation to respond to them, and indeed could not do so in certain respects in order to preserve the confidentiality of his client.
The Committee then determined that the charges found proven, when taken individually or in combination, did not amount to serious professional misconduct.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The following mitigating factors were present in this case: the circumstances of the incident, the fact that there was no premeditation, the fact that he was requested by his client to advance an opinion to [the buyers] concerning Alfie and that his ill judgement was on the spur of the moment and the fact that he had no financial gain. These are all important factors. Likewise, the fact that he did not know that the [buyers] regarded him as their pre-purchase examination vet is an important matter.
"The respondent’s conduct was clearly against the principles of behaviour articulated by Mr Morley [who acted as an expert witness for the College] in his expert report and in his evidence. Nevertheless, the Committee does not find that in the particular circumstances of this case, namely being asked to speak to a potential purchaser without warning and without being made aware of the contractual arrangements which had been made between the respondent and [the owner], the respondent should not properly be the subject of a finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
RCVS President Neil Smith has issued a statement in response to the petition by Devon vet Jo Dyer which called for the removal of mandatory house visits from the Code of Professional Conduct and received just shy of 1300 signatures over the past 48 hours.
The statement reads:
"I am delighted to see that so many veterinary surgeons are taking seriously our call for views and evidence on all aspects of the provision of 24-hour emergency cover, including those who have signed up to veterinary surgeon Jo Dyer's petition calling for the removal of 'mandatory house visits' from the Code of Professional Conduct.
"However, I am concerned that the petition is working on a misunderstanding. Veterinary surgeons are not mandated to attend away from the practice just because an owner has requested a visit. It is a professional decision based on a range of factors.
"In fact, paragraph 3.13 of the Supporting Guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct states 'Clients may request attendance on a sick or injured animal away from the practice premises and, in some circumstances, it may be desirable to do so. On rare occasions, it may be necessary on clinical or welfare grounds. The decision to attend away from the practice is for the veterinary surgeon, having carefully balanced the needs of the animal against the safety implications of making the visit; a veterinary surgeon is not expected to risk 'life or limb', or that of anyone else, to provide the service.'
"I appreciate that recent disciplinary hearings, especially that of Mr Chikosi, have increased concerns in the profession that vets will be disciplined for not turning out to every single request for a home visit. This is not the case. In order for someone to be taken to a disciplinary hearing for refusing to attend away from the practice, first there needs to be a complaint, and second, the Preliminary Investigation Committee needs to be convinced that the veterinary surgeon could not justify their decision. Such cases are rare. In fact, last year, only 3% of the complaints we received were about 24-hour cover, and not all of those related to home visits.
"Having said this, the number of signatures received on Jo Dyer's petition, and the comments of the signatories, will be fed into the material reviewed by the Standards Committee, alongside formal responses to our call for evidence, and views gathered from animal-owner research. Clearly if so many veterinary surgeons believe that house visits are mandatory in all circumstances, the wording of our guidance needs to be reviewed, at the very least.
"It is likely that any recommendations for change in our 24/7 policy would go to the June meeting of Council, although this timetable is subject to change, depending on the nature of the report from the Standards Committee."
Dr Bohnen faced two charges. The first was that in March 2017, she failed to attend to Belle, a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, in order to provide appropriate and adequate care including: assisting Belle with urination, monitoring her with a view to considering alternative treatment options, and monitoring her with a view to providing her owners with an update on her condition.
The second charge was that Dr Bohnen later claimed dishonestly that she had attended to the animal, both to the owners, in clinical records hospital records, in a note provided to colleagues and during internal disciplinary proceedings held at her practice.
At the outset of the hearing the Committee considered an application from Dr Bohnen for the hearing to be postponed as she was now based in her home country of South Africa, and said she could not apply for a visa to return to the UK until later in the year and internet access in her location was poor.
However, the Committee found that the RCVS had properly served the notice of inquiry to Dr Bohnen in accordance with the current rules, that she had had sufficient time and opportunity to apply for a visa since receiving the notice and that, in any case, she could remotely ‘attend’ the hearing via Skype or telephone if necessary by travelling to somewhere that did have adequate internet connectivity, and so it refused the application.
The Disciplinary Committee then considered the facts of the case and heard evidence from the owners of Belle, the clinical director of the practice that Dr Bohnen worked in at the relevant time and a veterinary nurse, who was a student doing her training at the practice during the time of the events in question.
Having considered all of the evidence, the Committee dismissed the parts of the first charge relating to considering alternative treatment options and updating the owners in relation to Belle’s condition. They did, however, find the charge proven in relation to Dr Bohnen failing to assist Belle with urination.
The Committee found all aspects of the second charge proven in its entirety after Dr Bohnen admitted in advance of the hearing, that her representations were false and misleading.
The Committee then went on to consider whether the second charge and the aspects of the first charge that were found proven amounted to serious professional misconduct both individually and cumulatively.
The Committee considered that Dr Bohnen’s conduct in failing to assist Belle with urination, whilst falling below the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon, did not amount to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee did however find that Dr Bohnen’s conduct with regards to the second charge constituted serious professional misconduct.
Professor Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee considers that the respondent’s dishonesty was the prime aggravating factor in this case. Although overall it could be regarded as a single incident, the Committee has found that it involved the fabrication of a number of notes and clinical records in the immediate aftermath of the death of the dog, but, thereafter, the respondent continued to deny the falsity of the fabricated records that she had created up to and until the conclusion of her interview by the practice on 30 March 2017.
"During that time, the respondent had contacted the alarm company responsible for the security of the premises of the practice, to enquire whether the security system would record the times of the alarm being switched on and off. This indicated that the respondent’s dishonesty continued over a significant period of time, and that her persistence in sticking to her story became premeditated. In other words, the respondent’s conduct over this time indicated a clear attempt to deceive."
Regarding the sanction for Dr Bohnen, the Committee considered that the principle aggravating factors in the case were serious dishonesty towards both her colleagues and the owners of the dog and involved clear breaches of the Code of Professional Conduct. By way of mitigation, the Committee noted that Dr Bohnen is of previous good character with no other professional findings against her and that she had demonstrated some insight into her behaviour and had admitted being dishonest and misleading prior to the hearing.
Summing up, Professor Barr said: "Because of the seriousness of this case, the Committee did not consider that it was appropriate to postpone judgement, take no further action, or to administer a reprimand and warning as to future conduct. The Committee considered that the respondent’s conduct, involving significant and admitted dishonesty over a period of time, required a significant penalty, in order to protect the welfare of animals and to serve the public interest.
"Accordingly, the Committee has decided to direct that the respondent’s registration be suspended for a period of nine months."
Dr Bohnen has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.
Miss Padron Vega faced four charges. The first and second alleged that in February 2016, for the purposes of an application to the Food Standards Agency for a Certificate of Competence under the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing Regulations 2015, she backdated two separate veterinary witness certificates to 7 December 2015. The third charge alleged that her acts of backdating were misleading, dishonest and in breach of the RCVS Principles of Certification.
The fourth charge against Miss Padron Vega was that, between September 2015 and February 2016, she failed to fulfil her duties as an Official Veterinarian in respect of: failing to prepare herself for the implementation of the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing Regulations 2015; failing to have regard to the information provided to her by her employers about the regulations and their implementation; failing to take any steps to ensure that the two individuals for whom she had given veterinary certification were licensed to perform slaughter in accordance with the regulations; and failing to identify that two individuals were not licensed to slaughter in accordance with the regulations.
The Committee heard that the Welfare at the Time of Killing Regulations were introduced on 5 November 2015 which placed the responsibility on slaughtering operations not to permit animal welfare abuses and required certification by a veterinary witness regarding compliance.
The new regulations required existing slaughter licence holders to apply for a Certificate of Competence before midnight on 8 December 2015 or they would not be permitted to continue operating even with experienced operatives.
During the hearing, Ms Padron Vega admitted charges 1 and 2, admitted that she had been in breach of the Principles of Certification and admitted the fourth charge against her.
However, she denied she had backdated the certificates in a misleading or dishonest way, maintaining that she had done so by mistake.
In considering the facts of the case, however, the Committee rejected this argument and, taking into account that she had been responsible for veterinary certifications in the UK since 2001, found that her conduct was knowingly misleading and dishonest.
The Committee then went on to consider whether the charges she admitted and the charges found against her constituted serious professional misconduct, both individually and cumulatively.
The Committee found that all the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In relation to charge 4 in particular Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee has found that the respondent failed to read even those emails which her employer sent to her which were marked ‘urgent’ or ‘OV importance high’. She must have known that her employers were directing attention to some new statutory scheme for she was provided with PowerPoint slides in that regard which she could read at any time of her convenience. The Committee has been driven to the conclusion that the respondent did not even bother to read those slides for, had she done so, she would have known that she needed to apprise herself of the requirements of the impending new statutory scheme.
"The respondent’s failings in this regard are little short of extraordinary, especially given her obligations as Lead OV for FAI Farms. The total abdication of her responsibility to understand the requirements of the Regulations governing the slaughterhouse operations constitutes, in the judgement of this Committee disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
The Committee then went on to consider the aggravating and mitigating factors in the case. In terms of aggravating features the Committee noted a lack of insight into the gravity of her conduct, that her conduct undermined in the most serious way public confidence in veterinary certification, and that there were animal welfare implications on her conduct as a number of chickens had to be removed from the slaughterhouse and alternative arrangements made because an auditor from the Food Standards Agency found that it was not compliant.
In mitigation the Committee considered that, despite the potential risk of harm, there was no actual harm occasioned to animals, that Miss Padron Vega has had a long and otherwise unblemished career and no previous issues with the RCVS and that she had admitted some of the charges against her.
Stuart Drummond added: "Ultimately, the Committee was driven to the conclusion that the public’s desire to see the implementation of the highest certification standards in relation to activities which impact on animal welfare and public health, and which did not occur on 3 February 2016, must outweigh this particular veterinary surgeon’s desire and need to continue in practice. This is not a conclusion which the Committee has arrived at lightly. On the contrary, it has reached this decision because it has been driven to the conclusion that it would be failing in its public duty to protect the wider public interest in the maintenance of standards of honesty and right conduct in a member of the profession.
"It is, therefore, the conclusion and decision of this Committee that the only proper sanction that can be imposed in this case is that the respondent’s name should be removed from the Register and it directs the Registrar accordingly."
Miss Padron Vega has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.
The consultation, which was held by the College early in 2017, asked for the views of veterinary surgeons and nurses, animal owners, and stakeholders on the use of telemedicine in veterinary clinical practice.
The consultation was designed to help identify potential risks associated with telemedicine, identify areas where it may help address the needs of both clinicians and the public, and support the potential development of new professional standards and guidance.
The online survey of veterinary professionals received 1,230 responses, while the public consultation received 229 responses and the survey of organisations/stakeholders received eight responses.
The headline question asked of veterinary professionals was whether RCVS 'supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct' should be amended to allow remote examination to take the place of physical examination in certain circumstances. 41% said 'Yes', 40% said 'No' and 18% were unsure.
Veterinary professionals and organisations were then asked a series of questions in order to establish how they rated the risk associated with telemedicine according to activity type, practice type, clinical sign or syndrome, mode of technology, and familiarity with client, animal or environment.
Unsurprisingly perhaps, the majority felt that providing just general advice presented a low risk. At the other end of the scale, most felt that the use of telemedicine to diagnose disease or injury would be either 'high risk', or 'not appropriate at all'.
Likewise, the majority said the risks would be low or medium where the client and environment were known and the animal seen before, for the same problem. By contrast, the majority said telemedicine would be either 'high risk' or 'not appropriate at all' when the client, animal and environment were all unknown.
When asked whether the current definition of 'under care' should be extended to allow veterinary surgeons to prescribe veterinary medicines where there has been no physical examination of the animal, 69% said 'No', 16% said 'Yes' and 15% were unsure.
However, when asked whether certain types of veterinary medicines should be able to be prescribed without a physical examination of the animal, the majority of respondents to the professional survey (52%) were in favour.
The results of the consultation were first considered at a special meeting of the Standards Committee in August 2017, where it was noted how the consultation had revealed significant confusion around current supporting guidance to the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct and that, at a minimum, clarification as to what was currently permissible was needed.
The Committee determined a key issue going forward was whether to change the Supporting Guidance to the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct regarding 'under care' to allow veterinary surgeons to prescribe POM-V medicines based on telemedicine alone.
Given the complex nature of the issues and the wide-ranging implications, the Standards Committee presented a range of options for amending RCVS Guidance to RCVS Council at its meeting in November 2017. After discussion, Council asked the Standards Committee to continue their review and to present more detailed proposals to Council regarding the future of telemedicine in clinical veterinary practice.
Anthony Roberts, RCVS Director of Leadership and Innovation, said: "We would like to thank all those who took the time to respond to the consultation – although Council has not yet made any firm decisions, we felt it would be useful to share our research so far.
"The use of telemedicine is growing rapidly in human healthcare and it is only right the RCVS assesses the opportunities it could bring to improve access to veterinary services. It is critical, however, that we understand the issues it presents 'at the coal face' and consider all the available evidence before making any changes to our Guidance. The RCVS should ensure its regulatory framework fosters innovation and maximises the opportunities to improve the quality, efficacy and accessibility of veterinary services, whilst at the same time protecting animal health and welfare."
The Standards Committee will meet again in April 2018 to take further evidence and develop proposals to take the issue forward.
Meanwhile, the full summary is available on the College’s website: www.rcvs.org.uk/telemeds-summary/.
The RCVS is inviting nominations from veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who are eligible to stand for RCVS Council and Veterinary Nurses (VN) Council, respectively, in next year’s elections.
The College says next year’s elections will not be affected by the current Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) consultation on the College’s governance arrangements and so, as always, six seats will be contested for RCVS Council, while two places are available on VN Council. Successful candidates are expected to serve four-year terms and will take up their places at RCVS Day in July 2016.
The nomination period for both RCVS and VN Councils runs until 5pm on Sunday 31 January 2016. In order to stand, candidates for either Council will need to complete a nomination form, submit a short biography and personal statement and supply a high resolution digital photo.
Each candidate will also need to have two nominators. For RCVS Council candidates, these should be veterinary surgeons who are on the RCVS Register but are not current RCVS Council members; for VN Council candidates, the nominators must be registered veterinary nurses who are not currently on VN Council.
Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar, said: "We are looking for committed and motivated veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who are dedicated to their respective professions and who, through the Councils and their various committees and subcommittees, wish to have direct input in decisions relating to how the College sets and advances standards of education and professional conduct. If this sounds like you then please find out more about standing as a candidate."
Liz Cox, Chair of VN Council, added: "I would strongly encourage all those want to have a say and play a leadership role in veterinary nursing to stand up and be counted and put themselves forward as a candidate. It is a very exciting time to join VN Council as the new Royal Charter has formalised the Council’s powers to regulate education and our professional standards, meaning that the decisions you make can have a very real impact on the profession."
The election period will start around mid-March and run until 5pm on Friday 29 April 2016. Ballot papers will be sent to all registered veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who are eligible to vote and, during the election period, the College will be sourcing questions from the professions to put to the candidates.
Nomination forms, guidance notes and frequently asked questions for prospective RCVS Council candidates can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil16. The equivalent documents for VN Council candidates are available at www.rcvs.org.uk/vncouncil16.
Prospective candidates for either Councils are also invited a ‘Meet the RCVS Day’ at the College’s offices in Belgravia House on Tuesday 15 December 2015, where they will have the opportunity to find out more about the role of the College and RCVS and VN Councils.
RCVS President Dr Bradley Viner and Chair of VN Council Liz Cox will also be on hand to answer questions about the duties and responsibilities of members of the respective Councils. Those interested in attending should contact Emma Lockley, Events Officer, on e.lockley@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0773. Reasonable expenses for travel will be reimbursed.
The RCVS Trust will take part in National Pet Month (3 April - 3 May) and is asking veterinary practices to put on 'Alice in Wonderland' themed fundraising events.
Cherry Bushell, RCVS Trust Director said: "The Trust aims to improve the health and well-being of dogs, cats, and other popular household pets and over the past five years has put nearly £900,000 into this cause. As a small charity we do rely on our supporters - and National Pet Month is a good opportunity to raise money and have fun."
Why Alice in Wonderland as a theme? Cherry said: "The Trust supports curiosity and a sense of wonder, so we came up with the Alice in Wonderland idea - which is topical and also has lots of scope for fundraising and publicity."
If you'd enjoy hosting a Mad Hatter's tea party - or raffling off the Queen of Heart's tarts - you can register with National Pet Month and take part. Further information and a free events pack can be obtained from http://www.nationalpetmonth.org.uk/.
National Pet Month runs from 3 April - 3 May. It aims to promote responsible pet ownership, make people aware of the mutual benefits of living with pets, increase public awareness of the role of pet care specialists and raise awareness of the value of working and assistance companion animals.