View all veterinary jobs
The Horse Trust provides a range of services to support working horses, while Medical Detection Dogs trains dogs to alert their owners to cancers and other medical conditions, providing pre-emptive non-invasive warning.
Stephen said: "These two charities' work in strengthening and supporting the human-animal bond is truly remarkable. Though The Horse Trust was originally founded in 1886 as a retirement home for working horses, and this remains a core focus of theirs to this day, it has now evolved to provide a whole range of services, from education to research to rescuing neglected equids.
"Medical Detection Dogs, though founded much more recently in 2008, has already done an incredible amount in its short history - 76 of its dogs are now partnered with people with critical medical conditions, ensuring essential emotional as well as medical support."
Jeanette Allen, CEO of The Horse Trust, said: "The Horse Trust is extremely grateful to the RCVS for this enormously generous donation. We care for 130 horses, ponies and donkeys that have either retired from public service or been rescued from appalling conditions. We also provide dedicated training programmes for first responders who have to deal with horses in crisis situations, as well as being the second largest funder of equine specific veterinary research in the UK. We survive as a charity on donations, and this one is most welcome and greatly appreciated."
Claire Guest, co-founder and chief executive of Medical Detection Dogs, said: "We are so grateful to the RCVS for their very generous donation. We receive no government funding for our work, so we rely entirely on the generosity of organisations like the RCVS. Thanks to this donation, we can continue our pioneering research into the detection of human disease using the extraordinary smelling power of dogs."
The President’s Christmas Box donation is made every year in lieu of sending out RCVS Christmas cards. Previous recipients have included Worldwide Veterinary Service, Mind, Riding for the Disabled Association, Canine Partners, Hounds for Heroes, and Vetlife.
With regard to all types of complementary and alternative medicine, the statement says that the College expects MsRCVS to offer treatments that "are underpinned by a recognised evidence base or sound scientific principles."
The new position statement states very clearly that homeopathy falls below this benchmark: "Homeopathy exists without a recognised body of evidence for its use. Furthermore, it is not based on sound scientific principles."
The full statement reads:
RCVS President Professor Stephen May said: "It is fair to say that debates on either side of this issue have been passionate and this too has been reflected in the debates that we have had amongst Council members as to how to best articulate the College’s position on complementary and alternative medicines.
"What we have is a statement that reinforces the evidence-based and sound scientific foundations of our profession and our commitment to put animal health and welfare at the forefront of all we do.
"I am very pleased that the overwhelming majority of Council members agreed with this statement and that the College has a firm and clear position on this important topic."
The original survey was sent last year to more than 5,000 UK-registered veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who gained their qualification from a non-UK EU institution, with a response rate of around 55%.
This year the Institute for Employment Studies (IES), on behalf of the RCVS, contacted over 6,000 veterinary surgeons and almost 50 veterinary nurses – including those previously surveyed as well as EU registrants who have joined since the last survey – who trained in non-UK EU countries to seek their views on the implications of Brexit for European veterinary professionals.
Chris Tufnell, RCVS Senior Vice-President and Chair of the College’s Brexit Taskforce, said: "The aim of this survey is to gain a greater understanding of the views and expectations of our EU colleagues now that certain elements of the UK’s withdrawal process from the European Union, as well as the timing, have become clearer. The survey will also be looking for the views of colleagues on how the College has addressed the challenges of Brexit so far.
"It is particularly important that those who responded to last year’s survey do so this year because the aim is to get a sense of how their views and plans are shifting as the Brexit process moves forward."
As with last year’s survey, the views collated through the consultation will help the College understand the immediate and longer-term impact of the UK’s exit from the EU, gather evidence that could be used to make a case for special treatment of veterinary professionals with regard to future immigration policies and allow the College to provide informed advice to European veterinary professionals as they make decisions about their future careers.
Dr Tufnell added: "I would strongly encourage EU veterinary professionals to respond to this survey, even if they didn’t do so last year, as their views really do matter to us and really do have an impact on our Brexit policies and the views we put forward to the government in these critical times."
The deadline for sending responses to the IES is Wednesday 18 July 2018 and all data will be managed and analysed by IES, an independent not-for-profit research institute, on a confidential basis with no individual responses being seen by the RCVS.
The College says it intends to conduct a third survey when the terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, and the impact of this on non-UK EU nationals, are better defined.
Miss Panait faced the charge that on 3 April 2018, at Cardiff Magistrates’ Court, she was convicted of causing serious injury by dangerous driving for which she was sentenced to 10 months in prison, disqualified from driving for 41 months and ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £140.
At the start of the hearing Miss Panait admitted to the charge against her which related to an accident on 15 May 2017 in which, following an attempt to overtake a number of vehicles, she lost control of her car and collided with a vehicle on the other side of the road, causing serious injuries to herself and life-changing injuries to the other driver. The Committee subsequently found this charge to be proved.
The Committee then considered whether the charge found proved made her unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
In doing so, it took into account the fact that Miss Panait was convicted of a serious crime which resulted in serious harm to another and for which she received a custodial sentence.
The Committee decided that the criminal conviction and the custodial sentence fell far below the standard expected of a veterinary surgeon and therefore rendered her unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
In considering her sanction, the Committee heard directly from Miss Panait who attended the hearing having been released from prison on licence.
Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "After the submissions the respondent spoke directly to the Committee. She was understandably emotional and was remorseful and apologetic. She acknowledged that she had made a mistake and apologised for bringing the profession into disrepute…. To the Committee her sense of personal responsibility or shame was palpable."
The Committee also took into account other aggravating and mitigating factors in the case.
The Committee recognised that it was a serious offence with significant consequences for both the victim and Miss Panait but accepted it was a single isolated incident, that Miss Panait has made efforts to avoid repetition of the incident by undertaking further driving instruction and recognised that she had displayed full insight and remorse. Furthermore, it also considered the many testimonials from colleagues and clients and that she had received significant support from her employers.
Mr Drummond added: "The Committee came to the conclusion that this was one of those exceptionally unfortunate and sad cases where it is appropriate and proportionate to take no further action. The respondent has insight and is deeply remorseful and has accepted full responsibility for what has happened.
"In the circumstances of this case the Committee determined that the public interest has been met by the finding that the respondent’s conviction renders her unfit to practise. The Committee was of the view that to impose any sanction now would be disproportionate."
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has called for comment on a new draft health protocol which aims to deal compassionately with veterinary surgeons who have health problems, such as alcohol or drug addiction or mental health issues, while continuing to protect the public interest.
According to independent legal advice sought by the College, such an approach is appropriate and necessary in order for the RCVS to fulfil its regulatory responsibilities - similar systems exist within other regulators.
RCVS President Peter Jinman said: "At present, where veterinary surgeons suffer from health problems that affect their fitness to practise, they may be referred to a formal and public Disciplinary Committee inquiry and stopped from practising. But it is recognised that this is not always in the public interest, which could be protected by a more compassionate approach, involving medical help, workplace supervision and continued practice, subject to conditions."
As a result, the draft Protocol has been developed by the RCVS Preliminary Investigation and Advisory Committees. It formalises and builds on steps taken by the Preliminary Investigation Committee in the past to help veterinary surgeons to recover from health problems affecting fitness to practise, without referral to the RCVS Disciplinary Committee. Often those veterinary surgeons are also receiving help from the Veterinary Benevolent Fund's Veterinary Surgeons' Health Support Programme.
The Protocol encourages anyone coming into contact with veterinary surgeons - including other veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses, members of practice staff, clients and healthcare professionals - who have concerns about a veterinary surgeon's health to report those concerns to the RCVS as soon as is reasonably practicable. Veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who are concerned about the health of a veterinary surgeon must also take steps to ensure that animals are not put at risk and that the interests of the public, including those of their colleagues, are protected.
A similar protocol would be introduced for Registered Veterinary Nurses when the equivalent disciplinary system comes into force next year.
The draft protocol, together with recommended changes to the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct to support the change, is available online (www.rcvs.org.uk/healthprotocol) and comments are requested by 8 October 2010. The comments will be considered by Advisory Committee and then RCVS Council.
Comments should be sent to Simon Wiklund, Advisory Manager, on s.wiklund@rcvs.org.uk. A hard copy of the consultation document is available on request.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has agreed to adjourn multiple charges against an Essex-based veterinary surgeon who qualified in 1969, following his undertakings firstly to request removal from the RCVS Register and secondly never apply to be restored to it.
At the hearing, which had originally been listed for seven days, Geoffrey Raymond Oliver, 68, was charged with serious professional misconduct over allegations of his inadequate treatment of two dogs and a cat (belonging to three different clients) between 2010 and 2012; inadequate record keeping; failures to deal honestly or properly with his clients; and, failure to heed advice from the RCVS Preliminary Investigation Committee about the importance of proper communication between veterinary surgeons and their clients.
However, before the Committee heard evidence on any aspect of these charges, Mr Oliver lodged his application for adjournment. The Committee therefore made no findings on the charges, and emphasised they had neither been proved against, nor admitted by, him.
The Committee noted that there had been no adverse findings against Mr Oliver during his professional career, that his practice was now closed and that he had no intention of returning to practise in the future. Should he subsequently apply to be restored to the Register, the Committee would resume its consideration of the charges, along with his breach of the undertaking.
The Committee was advised that none of the complainants in the case - which could have incurred considerable time and costs - dissented from the proposed course of action.
Speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, its Chairman, Professor Peter Lees, said: "The Committee has concluded that no useful purpose would be served were it to insist on a full hearing [and it] would be a disproportionate waste of...resources [to do so]. The Committee is satisfied that [granting the adjournment application] protects the welfare of animals and...is in the public interest."
The Committee then accepted Mr Oliver's undertakings, including the removal of his name from the Register with immediate effect.
Professor Lees added: "So that he is in no doubt about the matter, the Committee reminds [Mr Oliver] that, when referring clients of his former practice elsewhere, he should be careful to avoid giving them any advice about the diagnosis or treatment of their animals."
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed that Somerset-based veterinary surgeon Dr Marcus Hutber be removed from the Register, having found him guilty of serious professional misconduct following multiple complaints made against him.
During the 11-day hearing, the Disciplinary Committee heard eight, separate and unrelated complaints against Dr Marcus Hutber, made whilst he was the owner of the veterinary company Epivet Ltd, with practices in Williton and Wiveliscombe, in 2009. The complaints involved a series of allegations including lack of adequate professional care, failure to have regard to animal welfare, failure to make or maintain adequate clinical records (and to provide them on request), and failure to treat clients with courtesy and respect.
In the first case, Dr Hutber was found to have performed surgery on a dog inadequately; failed to provide adequate post-operative pain relief; failed to obtain informed consent for the surgery from the dog's owner; and, failed to keep adequate clinical records of the dog's treatment. In a second case of inadequate professional care, Dr Hutber failed to ensure a cat's condition was monitored adequately; failed to ensure that the cat received appropriate fluid therapy; and, failed to keep adequate clinical records.
Dr Hutber was found to have brought the profession into disrepute by speaking rudely to one of his clients. On a separate occasion, a different client was found to have been treated without due courtesy or respect when Dr Hutber told her to come to the practice at once to get tablets and give them to her dog, otherwise the dog would die (of a disease he had diagnosed without carrying out the necessary investigations) - an instruction he then later repeated despite being told the dog was now being treated at a different practice.
One other complaint, where charges were proved, involved Dr Hutber's refusal to provide an animal's clinical records to a former client.
The Disciplinary Committee found Dr Hutber's conduct in respect of the charges proved in relation to each complaint, standing alone and taken collectively, amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In reaching its findings, the Committee considered the oral evidence and written statements of 20 witnesses (including Dr Hutber), two expert witness reports, a large quantity of documentary evidence, Dr Hutber's extensive rebuttal material and Counsels' submissions. Generally, the Committee preferred the evidence of the College's witnesses to that of Dr Hutber. Despite the Committee accepting he was of previous good character, it found him to be unhelpful and uncooperative, frequently lapsing into periods of silence that could last minutes, and staring fixedly (and, in the Committee's view, intimidatingly) at witnesses and College Counsel. There were also inconsistencies between his written rebuttal to the College, his witness statement and his oral evidence, about which the Committee found him evasive and illogical.
The Committee considered Dr Hutber had shown no insight into the allegations, or appreciated the significance or impact of his conduct upon his clients and their animals. He had shown no remorse or regret for his actions, and had continued to assert that he had done nothing wrong.
Further, he had caused actual injury to an animal by subjecting it to unnecessary revision surgery; displayed an inadequate and incomplete understanding of the concept of informed consent; demonstrated a lamentable lack of concern for animal welfare; brought the profession into disrepute with his treatment of his clients; and, exhibited conduct that fell far short of that to be expected of a member of the veterinary profession.
Chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee, Professor Peter Lees, said: "The Committee has found that there were fundamental failings in the Respondent's clinical competence, and that there were serious defects in his interpersonal skills in relation to clients. He has throughout displayed a tendency to blame others for things which have gone wrong. [The Committee] is not satisfied that there is a realistic prospect of the Respondent having the ability or inclination to remedy his failings [and] remains unconvinced that there is a real possibility of a change in his attitude.
"The Committee is fully conscious that the purpose of sanction is not to punish, but to protect animals and the wider public interest and to uphold the reputation of the veterinary profession. Having regard to the serious aggravating factors [in this case], the Committee considers that the Respondent's conduct, taken as a whole, is so serious that removal of his professional status is the only appropriate sanction."
Accordingly, the Committee directed the Registrar to remove Dr Hutber's name from the Register.
The full details of the Committee's findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
The Veterinary Nurses Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has launched a new award to celebrate outstanding achievement, to mark the 50th anniversary of veterinary nursing.
The Golden Jubilee Award will recognise an exceptional contribution to the veterinary nursing profession and/or a positive contribution to animal welfare.
Liz Branscombe, Chairman of the Veterinary Nurses Council, said: "This is a prestigious new award and a great opportunity to recognise someone who has made a positive impact on our profession.
"VN Council strongly felt that the award should be accessible to a wide spectrum of veterinary nurses, so nominees could come from those veterinary nurses involved in clinical practice, research, teaching or politics - in fact, any aspect of veterinary nursing."
Nominations should be received by 1 May 2011, and more information, together with the nomination form, can be found online at www.rcvs.org.uk/VNat50.
The award will be presented at RCVS Day on 1 July 2011.
Mr Kashiv first appeared before the Committee in December 2016 in relation to four charges against him regarding his inadequate treatment of a Scottish Terrier called Tanzy which was ultimately euthanased due to renal failure.
The first charge related to Mr Kashiv’s original consultation with the owner in March 2015 and his failure to investigate for renal disease; his failure to discuss with the owner investigations to assess metastatic spread; failure to discuss with the owner alternative options to surgery such as palliative care or euthanasia and failure to explain to the owner key factors with regards to the surgery he had suggested to her, including its nature and extent, the risks involved, the fact another vet would be performing the surgery, and what to expect post-operatively.
The second charge related to the fact that, having admitted the dog as an in-patient at the practice, he failed to conduct further investigations regarding her poor condition; provide any or any adequate pain relief, or fail to record the same; failed to discuss with the owner the dog’s poor prognosis and failed to discuss with the owner the option of euthanasia.
The third charge related to the fact that Mr Kashiv discharged the animal back into her owner’s care when she was not in a fit state for discharge. The fourth and final charge related to the fact that Mr Kashiv failed to keep sufficient clear, detailed and accurate clinical records for his treatment of the dog.
At his original hearing in December 2016, the Committee found the four charges proven and also found that charges 1 to 3 amounted to serious professional misconduct. However, the Committee decided to postpone the judgement for two years, whilst recommending that Mr Kashiv agree to undertake a structured programme to improve his clinical practice, including putting together a personal development plan, having a mentor, accepting regular practice visits and undertaking additional continuing professional development (CPD).
The resumed hearing took place on Tuesday 18 December 2018, during which the Committee heard evidence from Dr Writer-Davies MRCVS (the veterinary surgeon appointed to review Mr Kashiv’s practice and report back to the Disciplinary Committee over the two year period), Mrs Somers MRCVS, (his appointed mentor), and Mr Kashiv himself.
Dr Writer-Davies told the Committee that she had no concerns about Mr Kashiv’s abilities regarding patient safety and that, in her view, he now meets the standards of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon. She cited the fact he had gained in confidence when communicating with clients, had undertaken a considerable amount of CPD focused on the areas of concern identified in the case, that she had observed more detailed record keeping from him and that a veterinary nurse had been appointed to assist in running Mr Kashiv’s practice.
The evidence from Mrs Somers also found that Mr Kashiv’s knowledge was in line with that expected of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon and that she had observed a good quality of care for pets and their owners from him.
Mr Kashiv also gave evidence, which the Committee said demonstrated considerable insight into his previous conduct and a good attitude towards self-reflective practice. The Committee also felt that the testimonials provided by Mr Kashiv showed him to be a kind and caring veterinary surgeon.
Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee considers that, having successfully completed the undertakings, Mr Kashiv is now a safe practitioner. The last two years has allowed Mr Kashiv to develop his skills particularly in the area of communication.
"However, the Committee has not lost sight of the fact that this was a serious case and that there was substantial harm caused to Tanzy.
"The Committee considers that in the intervening two years Mr Kashiv has gained considerable insight, developed better communication skills and remains open to improving his practice. It therefore imposes a reprimand on Mr Kashiv. The Committee considers that a reprimand is the appropriate and proportionate sanction to uphold proper professional standards and to maintain public confidence in the veterinary profession."
The RCVS has released the results of a survey which has found that increasing numbers of graduates over the last five years have had little impact on veterinary job prospects.
The survey was carried out for the RCVS by the Institute for Employment Studies, which asked the last five years' UK graduates who have registered with the College how long it took them to find work, how long they stayed in their first jobs, and why they moved on.
The online survey, which achieved a 43% response rate (1,354 responders), found that an average of 94% of graduates seeking a role in clinical practice obtained work within six months of starting to look.
The actual figure ranged from a high of 96% in 2008 to a low of 92% in 2010, and did not change significantly over the five years under consideration, despite UK graduate numbers increasing by around a quarter during the same period (from 650 in 2007, to 819 in 2012). Meanwhile, the College has registered an average of 618 overseas graduates annually during this time.
The survey did show that it was taking graduates slightly longer to secure their posts, with a shift from 85% securing work under three months in 2008, to 71% in 2012.
The results seem to suggest some small differences in the time taken for men and women to find their first jobs, with men finding jobs slightly quicker, although the vast majority of both genders found veterinary work.
Jacqui Molyneux, RCVS President said: "After the announcement from the University of Surrey that it will be opening a new vet school in the near future, there was a great deal of discussion amongst the profession about how easily new graduates could find employment. I undertook to get some real facts and am pleased to find that the picture is not as gloomy as predicted.
However, Jacqui said she was concerned that there has been a slight increase in the proportion of respondents who left their first position after a relatively short period of time. Amongst 2012 graduates, over 40% of those who had left their first position did so within three months of starting work. However it must be stressed that only 18% of those answering the survey who graduated in 2012 had already left their first position. Jacqui said: "Although the turn-over in first jobs seems to be, in part, due to an increase in temporary posts, I am saddened to see that the most commonly-cited reason for graduates leaving their first job was lack of support from their employers or professional colleagues.
"This is an area that we, as a profession, must address. As I have told all the students I have admitted to the College, their first jobs will influence their whole careers, and getting adequate support is probably the single most important factor. Meanwhile, it is heartening to see that nearly all of those moving on have obtained further employment."
Although the survey was sent to all those UK graduates who had registered with the RCVS within the last five years, the contact details for those who had subsequently de-registered may not have been up to date, which may mean that those who had de-registered because they could not find work were not well represented. However, the College says it thinks it is more likely that these individuals would have switched to the 'non-practising' category.
A summary of the headline survey results will be available at www.rcvs.org.uk/publications. The full findings, which also looked at the time taken to complete the Professional Development Phase and the type and location of work sought, will be available in due course.
The new RCVS brand has been highly commended in the 'Brand Development' Category of the Membership Communication (MemCom) Awards.
The new look, which was launched last year, aimed to clarify the role and function of the College, with the strapline 'Setting veterinary standards' and a professional new livery of blue and gold.
The award was made at a presentation at the Institute of Directors on 17 May, and the judges' citation said: "[The rebrand] sought to overcome a remote and stuffy image whilst at the same time seeking to underline that it is the only Royal College that is primarily a regulatory body acting in the public interest," adding that "to put this into second place took a remarkable entry".
The top award in the category was taken by the Wildfowl and Wetland Trust, with its book 'Watching Waterbirds', endorsed by the TV celebrity Kate Humble.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS Head of Communications said: "Design can be subjective but the important thing is what it communicates. We are delighted to have received this commendation in recognition of the work we have done to ensure the role of the College is clearer for both the public and the profession."
The RCVS is advising all practices that it is not currently carrying out a data-gathering exercise and that phone calls prompting the return of a survey, and requesting mobile phone numbers, are not being made on behalf of the College.
The warning comes after several practices have called the College to query 'feedback forms' - supposedly issued in relation to the Practice Standards Scheme or the payment of members' retention fees.
The practices were asked to return forms which they had not received, and also to provide mobile phone numbers, by someone who claimed to work for the 'statutory regulator' or 'the RCVS'. Contact phone numbers left by the caller were either RCVS fax numbers or numbers which looked like RCVS direct dial numbers, but were not.
Lizzie Lockett, Head of Communications, said: "This looks like an exercise to gain mobile phone numbers which is being carried out in the College's name. We are currently investigating who might be making these calls. In the meantime, if a practice receives such a call, it would be helpful if they could take down a name and contact number and let us know."
Ring 020 7202 0725 or email l.lockett@rcvs.org.uk to report any suspicious activity.
The programme, which was developed in collaboration with the NHS Leadership Academy, is designed to teach a number of skills that underpin good leadership, including decision-making, resilience, implementing an inclusive culture and encouraging reflective learning approaches. It comprises two free-to-access courses and an optional paid for assessment.
The College says that one of the programme's most popular aspects is its audio drama, which follows the lives of veterinary professionals living in the fictional county of Glenvern. The stories that depict the characters’ working lives seek to reveal the diverse leadership challenges that veterinary professionals face on a day-to-day basis. This in turn prompts the listener to reflect, consider how they would respond, and learn from their own experiences as well as those of other people.
The first course was piloted this summer, with over 550 veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses, students and practice managers helping the College to develop and refine the material, whilst a group of learners are currently piloting the second course in the series.
Sally Coles, an RVN qualified for 17 years said: “This has been a great experience; I have looked forward to spending the time out to do it. It hasn't felt like a course but an interactive learning exercise that has given me time to reflect on myself and how I can impact on others, it has also help me accept who I am and am how I am developing in my role. I would recommend this course to someone who really enjoys deep thinking and self-awareness. I agree with the comments that it has taken me longer than 4 hours a week as you really will benefit from having a journal and reading all the extras. Looking forward to more.”
Given the overwhelmingly positive feedback received on the first course the RCVS has now opened the programme to all veterinary professionals.
The programme is now accepting registrations for a new cohort of learners to begin the first of three courses on 26th November. A ‘sign-up’ email will be sent out to all veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses ahead of the course starting.
Director of Leadership and Innovation at the RCVS, Anthony Roberts, said: "I am very pleased to be able to announce the launch of this programme. I would urge anyone with an interest in developing their leadership skills, as well as those looking to refine their longstanding leadership skills, to take part. The feedback we have received on the first course in this programme [please see Notes to Editors] has shown us that this MOOC has a far-reaching application, and is both educational and enjoyable. Whether you are a vet, veterinary nurse, practice manager or student, this programme will be relevant and useful in your professional career."
For more information, visit: www.rcvs.org.uk/leadershipmooc or email: leadership@rcvs.org.uk
4,661 veterinary surgeons voted, the highest turnout seen in ten years. 1,329 veterinary nurses voted, the highest ever number.
Veterinary surgeons voted incumbents Christopher Gray, Peter Jinman, Bradley Viner, Christopher Tufnell, and Jeremy Davies back onto the RCVS Council. However, the highest number of votes was given to Thomas Witte, who will be new to Council when he takes his seat in July. Veterinary nurses voted similarly by returning Andrea Jeffery to VN Council, whilst giving to Amy Robinson, another newcomer, the largest number of votes.
According to the College, turnout in both elections has increased markedly on last year in both absolute and proportional terms. Votes were cast by 4,661 veterinary surgeons (18.8%) and 1,329 veterinary nurses (12.5%), compared to 3,625 (15.1%) and 743 (7.5%), respectively, in 2012.
Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar said: "We're delighted with the increase in turnout. It's difficult to pinpoint the reasons for the increase, but hopefully, it's because increasing numbers of vets and nurses are feeling more engaged with the College. We have also undertaken extra communications activities this year, such as the 'hustings', which we hope have helped."
The Council election 'hustings' was a new venture this year, with RCVS Council candidates able to select three questions, submitted by voters, to answer in a live webinar run by The Webinar Vet.
Veterinary surgeons and VNs could cast their votes by post, online, or by text. The majority of vets voting chose to cast postal votes (3,247), as did the majority of VNs (1,055). Whilst voting online was used by 1,330 veterinary surgeons, only 227 VNs chose it as a means of voting. Voting by text was used by only 84 veterinary surgeons and 47 VNs.
The successful candidates will take up or resume their seats at RCVS Day on 5 July.
The full results of the two elections are as follows:
RCVS Council electionWITTE, Thomas Hermann - 2,251 (Elected)GRAY, Christopher John - 1,974 (Elected)JINMAN, Peter Charles - 1,949 (Elected)VINER, Bradley Phillip - 1,927 (Elected)TUFNELL, Christopher Wynne - 1,883 (Elected)DAVIES, Jeremy Vincent - 1,830 (Elected)STURGESS, Christopher Paul - 1,809 CONNELL, Niall Thomas - 1,596 ROBINSON, Peter Bayley - 1,366 ELLIS, Robert Nigel Ward - 1,302 GRANT, Lewis George - 832 TORGERSON, Paul Robert - 824 LONSDALE, Thomas - 337 Twenty-two votes in the RCVS Council election were found to be invalid.VN Council election
ROBINSON, Amy - 725 (Elected)JEFFERY, Andrea Karen - 607 (Elected)BADGER, Susan Frances - 459TOTTEY, Helen Wendy 332 One vote in the VN Council election was found to be invalid.The 2013 RCVS and VN Council elections were run on behalf of the RCVS by Electoral Reform Services.
John Davies and Tom Lonsdale MsRCVS both objected to edits made by the College to their candidate statements.
Mr Davies explained in his statement how he'd been subject to "bewildering, unfounded and damaging allegations" from two veterinary nurses, one of which he says resulted in his dismissal from a practice at which he was a partner. He went on to explain how, in addition to taking the dismissal case to an employment tribunal and winning, he had also raised concerns with the College about the nurses who'd made the allegations against him. Mr Davies outlined the way he felt that the RCVS mismanaged his case and how that had driven him to stand for Council to try and address the grave concerns he now had about the governance of the profession. However, the Returning Officer redacted the details on the grounds that they were considered to be defamatory and/or factually misleading.
The main grounds for Mr Lonsdale’s challenge was that the election had been furthered by corrupt practices, namely undue influence (all in terms of the Misrepresentation of the People Act 1983). In addition, the Returning Officer edited Mr Lonsdale’s candidate statement before circulation to the electorate, refusing to include hypertext links and removing references that the Returning Officer believed to be defamatory. The Returning Officer also declined to publish his ‘Quiz the candidates’ video on the RCVS website and/or YouTube channel when requests to make minor amendments considered defamatory were refused.
Both challenges were lodged with the RCVS last July, after which the College set up a Challenge Committee in accordance with the election challenge procedure, approved by Privy Council. It comprised three members of Council nominated by RCVS President Stephen May.
Sitting with one of the RCVS Legal Assessors – Mr Richard Price OBE QC – the Challenge Committee was required to decide whether to declare the election void, based on whether the alleged irregularity in question rendered the election substantially not in accordance with the RCVS Council Election Scheme, or that the irregularity concerned significantly affected the result of the election (in which Mr Lonsdale and Mr Davies came 15th and 16th respectively out of 16 candidates).
Following written submissions from both the RCVS and Mr Davies, the Challenge Committee dismissed Mr Davies’s challenge, stating that there was no irregularity in the conduct of the election on the part of the Returning Officer, and that there was no valid basis for challenging the validity of the election.
The Challenge Committee (comprising the same members as for Mr Davies’s challenge) also dismissed Mr Lonsdale’s challenge, stating that it considered it to be 'totally devoid of merit'.
Prior to reaching this decisions, however, two preliminary challenges made by Mr Lonsdale were also considered and dismissed.
The first related to the members of the Challenge Committee, whom Mr Lonsdale argued should stand down on the basis of actual or apparent bias based on his allegations of connections with the pet food industry.
The Committee considered that a fair-minded and informed observer, having understood the facts, would conclude that the connection of committee members to the pet food industry were '….remote, indirect and, in the case of one panel member, virtually non-existent'.
Each committee member was satisfied that there was '…no real possibility of their judgement being distorted or influenced by any interest in, or links with, the pet food industry.'
The second challenge was to The Legal Assessor, who had been appointed to advise the Committee. Mr Lonsdale had alleged that Mr Price had displayed bias in the way that he had given advice to the Committee in relation to the challenge to the Committee membership. This was also dismissed.
The case was brought by the College after a member of the public raised a 'concern' relating to Mrs Mullen's practice in December 2015. The concern was not pursued by the College.
However, during its initial investigation, the RCVS case manager ascertained that contrary to the requirements of the Code of Professional Conduct, Mrs Mullen did not have PII.
In January 2016 Mrs Mullen was advised by the College that, in order to comply with the Code, she needed to ensure her professional activities were covered by PII or equivalent arrangements.
The matter was considered by the Preliminary Investigation Committee which asked, in October 2016, that Mrs Mullen produce evidence that she was now compliant with the requirement to have PII or equivalent. Mrs Mullen responded in November 2016 confirming that she had not put in place such arrangements.
The case was then referred to the Disciplinary Committee in January 2017.
During the hearing it was determined that, during the relevant time period (from November 2015 to November 2016) Mrs Mullen was practising but did not have professional indemnity insurance in place and therefore was in breach of the Code.
Mrs Mullen, who represented herself, told the Committee that she admitted that she did not have PII. She explained that she was 'ethically and morally opposed to it' as she felt that it did not give fair compensation to claimants and did not know it was a requirement of the Code of Professional Conduct until she was informed by the College in January 2016.
When giving oral evidence as to equivalent arrangements she disclosed that she kept significant funds in a bank account; these were not however specifically earmarked for use in the event of any possible claims, and were also required to pay practice expenses.
In light of evidence produced by the College and her own admissions, the charges against Mrs Mullen were found proved and she was found guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
In coming to this decision Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The respondent failed to have PII in place for a period of about 12 months as specified in the charges. Moreover, she failed to remedy the situation when advised in January 2016 by the College that she was in breach of the Code and the supporting guidance. This remains a continuous course of conduct, which has still not been remedied. The respondent has chosen not to read the Code, or the supporting guidance, until very recently, in relation to her obligation to have PII or equivalent arrangements in place, and she failed to heed the advice of the College that she must rectify the position."
In considering the sanction the Committee took into account mitigating and aggravating factors. Aggravating factors included the fact that the misconduct was sustained over a significant period of time and that limited insight was shown by Mrs Mullen. While she did begin to display limited insight into the significance of her misconduct, the Committee said that this insight was "hampered by her ambivalence towards the College and the systems that regulate the veterinary profession."
In mitigation the Committee took into account Mrs Mullen’s long and unblemished career and the fact she was a sole practitioner who reported challenging personal circumstances and provided a unique service to a niche group of clients.
However, Chitra Karve said: "The Committee is unable to overlook the Respondent’s lack of commitment to obtaining PII or equivalent arrangements, even after being advised by the College that this was essential. The Committee is aware that a suspension could adversely affect her practice and her clients that she uniquely serves. However the Committee thinks it is necessary to send a clear message to the respondent and the public, that failure to obtain PII or equivalent arrangements is wholly unacceptable."
She added: "Accordingly, the Committee directs the Registrar to suspend the respondent’s registration for a period of two months. The Committee considers that this period of suspension will give the respondent an opportunity to rectify her breaches of the Code in relation to PII… and to reflect upon her attitude towards the College and the appropriate regulation of the veterinary profession."
The RCVS has announced a number of senior staff changes.
Gordon Hockey has been ratified by Council as Head of Legal Services and Registrar. This is a new role created when the post of Registrar and Secretary was split into two: Chief Executive and Secretary; and Head of Legal Services and Registrar.
Gordon, who was previously Assistant Registrar/Head of Professional Conduct, and then Acting Registrar, will have oversight responsibility for registration and professional conduct.
At the same time, Eleanor Ferguson, formerly Acting Head of Professional Conduct, has been confirmed in the position.
The post of Head of Registration has been made redundant, with a new role of Customer Experience Manager created to ensure that the customer (public and profession) journey improves across the organisation. This position will also report into Gordon Hockey.
There have been other changes on the Senior Team at the College. The post of Head of Corporate Services that had been vacant since the departure of Richard Holford last December will not be filled, and Head of Finance Corrie McCann has been promoted to the new role of Head of Operations, which will incorporate finance, corporate services (IT, mailing, reception) and facilities.
Two other posts have been made redundant: Special Projects Manager and RCVS Charitable Trust Director. A new post of Executive Director for the Trust will be developed, with a view to taking the Trust through a full strategic review.
Chief Executive Nick Stace said: "I believe that an engaged and well-purposed team of staff, with a focus on customer service and driving improvements, lies at the heart of any successful organisation. These changes will enable the College to move into the next stage of its development towards becoming a first-rate regulator."
The changes will mean that the Senior Team is reduced from 11 people to seven, being the Chief Executive plus Heads of Legal Services, Operations, Human Resources, Education, Veterinary Nursing and Communications.
Nick Stace, CEO of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS), has issued a swift and robust response to the call by Unite for a shake up for the profession's regulatory system.
"Unite's suggestion that veterinary regulation should be under the scrutiny of the Professional Standards Authority (PSA) is misguided, because the PSA is there to oversee regulation in the human healthcare sector and the RCVS already has Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and Privy Council oversight.
"Its further thoughts around the RCVS disciplinary process are out of date and missing the point. We would be very happy to help put them right and to hear any legitimate concerns they may have.
"Unite is calling for the College to no longer 'set the rules and hand down judgments', when in fact last year we successfully achieved a Legislative Reform Order, backed by the profession, to ensure that our Disciplinary and Preliminary Investigation Committees will become independent from Council.
"Unite also talks about the profession's disquiet about last year's Disciplinary Hearing into Mr Chikosi, something we are well aware of and are currently responding to by looking at the biggest area of concern, the provision of 24/7 emergency cover. Our fact-finding mission is seeking views from the profession and the public.
"More broadly, though, feedback from our First Rate Regulator initiative has shown that the profession does have confidence in our disciplinary procedures and that they are certainly not subject to 'long-standing discontent'.
"The First Rate Regulator initiative is also leading to significant improvements in the way that complaints are handled, including speed to resolution.
"Unite is seeking to recruit members of the veterinary team as members of its union and it may be more successful in that pursuit if it was to start to understand the profession better, perhaps beginning with getting its facts right.
"We would be delighted to meet with Unite to put them right where they are factually wrong, and hear what they have to say."
This was the sixth time that Mr Warwick Seymour-Hamilton had applied for restoration after being removed from the Register in June 1994, the reasons for which related to the condition of his practice premises and his record-keeping following an inspection by the RCVS. His most recent restoration hearing took place in May 2017.
In his application Mr Seymour-Hamilton said that he wanted to be restored to the Register to aid his research into herbal medicines and, during the course of the hearing, he also challenged some of the evidence given to the Committee in the June 1994 hearing. In particular he challenged the assertion that his practice was open when it was inspected by the RCVS as, he submitted that, he had retired three weeks’ prior to the inspection due to ill-health.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton told the Committee that he did not wish to return to clinical practice but wished to restore his membership of the RCVS in order to prescribe his own herbal treatments and to obtain peer review that would allow his treatments to be licensed. Furthermore, he produced, during the hearing, a continuing professional development (CPD) record card in which he had logged 1,438 hours of CPD in 2017.
In considering his application for restoration the Committee dismissed his challenge to the details of his original hearing in June 1994.
Ms Judith Way, Chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee has noted that this issue is ancient. It is not for this Committee to consider it. Moreover the finding of the Committee represents a determination which was not challenged by the applicant until one of the more recent restoration applications. He never appealed it. Nor did he attend at the original hearing. It acknowledges that the premises could well have been closed given their condition, but whether they were or not is not for it [the Committee] to decide. It is quite possible the applicant has persuaded himself of the position. This is not an issue which is a persuasive factor in this application."
Regarding Mr Seymour-Hamilton’s contention that he would use his RCVS registered status to further his research into herbal treatments Ms Way said: "The Committee accepted there were no direct public protection issues which caused it concern, although it did retain some anxiety that the applicant’s commitment to herbal medicine could govern the way in which he would wish to care for an animal. A more rounded veterinary approach, which involved a full evaluation of an animal’s condition, a coherent diagnosis and a subsequent discussion about treatment with the client is called for."
Turning to his CPD she added: "His CPD now has a bias for herbal medicine as does his extensive reading. The Committee was not satisfied that his skills are up-to-date and that he could practise veterinary medicine safely. The Committee was not satisfied that he would approach a sick animal with the full and rounded approach required of a veterinary surgeon. Nor did his confidence in this regard allay the concerns of the Committee. He expressed belief in himself on the basis of his practice which came to an end some 24 years ago."
The Committee did acknowledge that Mr Seymour-Hamilton’s removal from the Register had a considerable impact on him and that, not only is he ashamed of it, but he believes it is frustrating his ability to advance the cause of herbal medicine.
In conclusion, Ms Way said: "Taking all these matters into account, the Committee has concluded that the applicant has not satisfied it on all of the evidence that he is fit to be restored to the Register and so this application is refused."
The College says it will be sending the annual renewal notice to the majority of veterinary nurses by email, so if you don't receive it, check your spam folder. Text message reminders will also be sent to those for whom the College holds a mobile number.
Nicola South, Head of Registration, said: "Last year saw a definite increase in the number of veterinary nurses who renewed on time, which is really wonderful.
"This year we just wanted to remind everyone that the College will be closed on the final day of the deadline, Friday 29 December so there won’t be any of the Registration team available in the office to assist with any login or payment issues. If anybody has any problems renewing before then, however, please do get in touch and we’ll be happy to help."
The annual renewal fee of £64 is due for payment by 1 November, and if a veterinary nurse does not pay the annual renewal fee by the end of the year they will be removed from the Register.
Payments by debit or credit card can be made online via the ‘My Account’ area or by cheque, bank draft or bank transfer.
All veterinary nurses also need to confirm their Register details and their compliance with the College’s CPD requirement of 45 hours over a three-year rolling period, and declare any convictions, cautions and/or adverse findings.
Any veterinary nurses who have not received an annual renewal email or letter by Monday 9 October should contact the Registration Department on registration@rcvs.org.uk.
Miss Morris faced three charges.
The first was that she left the post-operative German Shepherd unattended between 12.15pm and 2.30pm, made clinical records entries before leaving the practice indicating she’d made these entries at 2pm when she had not, and at 1.41pm sent a message to a veterinary surgeon colleague in which she purported to be providing contemporaneous updates about the dog’s condition and circumstances when she was not, in fact, with the animal.
The second charge alleged that her conduct from the first charge was potentially detrimental to the dog’s welfare, while the third charge alleged that the same conduct was dishonest and/or misleading.
Miss Morris admitted the majority of the charges, although she denied that she had made the clinical record dishonestly, saying that she had innocently omitted to correct a time entry she had earlier made in the records as a “prompt”.
After considering the evidence, the Committee found that she had been dishonest as she knowingly pre-entered the incorrect time in order to cover up for a period of absence from the practice.
The Committee then considered whether the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee found that there was a real risk of injury to the animal caused by leaving it unattended when it was recovering from a serious emergency procedure, dishonesty, recklessness regarding the dog’s welfare, pre-meditated misconduct, breach of client trust and, breach of the position of trust and responsibility placed in her.
In mitigation, the Committee considered that this was a single isolated incident, that it concerned one animal, and that, although there was a risk of harm in leaving a vulnerable animal unattended, her actions did not directly lead to any harm coming to the animal.
Overall, it found that Miss Morris’s conduct would undermine the public trust and confidence placed in the veterinary nursing profession as a whole as well as bring the profession into disrepute and so found that her actions amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In deciding the most appropriate sanction, the Committee took into account a number of further mitigating factors. These were Miss Morris’s youth and inexperience at the time of the misconduct, her previously unblemished career, her open and frank admissions to the majority of the charges, her efforts to avoid repeating such behaviours, her efforts to remediate past misconduct, the significant lapse of time between the incident and the disciplinary hearing, her demonstration of insight into her misconduct, together with and positive personal character references and testimonials.
Mrs Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “In deciding the proportionate sanction, the Committee considered the nature and extent of the dishonesty it had found proved.
"When considering where the dishonesty fell on a scale of dishonesty, it noted that the respondent had acted dishonestly within her practice as a veterinary nurse, on three clinical records, but that the dishonesty related to a single incident and one patient with the aim of extending her time away from the practice on Christmas Day.
"It therefore concluded that this could be described as middle ranging dishonesty (not the most or least serious type of dishonesty)."
Mrs Way added: “The Committee therefore concluded that, taking into account all of the above matters, a suspension of six months was the proportionate sanction required to meet the public interest in this case.
"It decided on a period of six months in order to send a signal to the veterinary nursing profession and the public about such conduct.
"In the Committee’s judgment, taking into account all of the above factors, a sanction of removal would be excessive and would not take sufficient account of the substantial mitigating factors.”
The full findings of the Disciplinary Committee can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Lynn Jo Ann Davies MRCVS first appeared before the Committee in January 2018 to face a number of charges related to two drink-driving offences, breaching the terms of her undertakings to the College as part of its Health Protocol, and being under the influence of alcohol on three occasions while she was on duty as a veterinary surgeon in December 2016.
Dr Davies admitted all five charges against her and admitted that this meant she was unfit to practise veterinary surgery and that she was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. The Committee accepted her admissions and found, with the exception of one allegation, that her conduct was disgraceful in a professional respect.
At its first hearing the Committee having considered both aggravating and mitigating circumstances decided to postpone the hearing for six months on the basis of Dr Davies’ entering into a new set of undertakings, including one not to practise veterinary surgery and to remain abstinent from alcohol during the period of postponement.
At the second hearing, in July 2018, the Disciplinary Committee resumed its sanction inquiry decision. Dr Davies’ Counsel submitted on her behalf that Dr Davies wished to return to practise and the Committee reviewed her witness statements, documentary proof and medical records that she provided to demonstrate she had complied with the her undertakings given at the last hearing.
Stuart Drummond, Chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "Having had the opportunity to see and hear from the respondent when she gave evidence and when she answered the questions put to her, the view formed of her current state of health was favourable. All members of the Committee considered that the account she gave of herself in the witness box was confident and they were reassured by her evidence as to how she now sets about managing her levels of stress and how she reacted to stressful incidents.
"Such concerns as the Committee had about her return to practice concerned her ability to receive support from a third party who would act as a mentor…the Committee therefore requires the Respondent to identify, within a period of one month of today’s date, a veterinary surgeon who would agree to act as her mentor. That mentor would have to be a veterinary surgeon acceptable to the College as someone suitable to act in that capacity and that mentor would have to be approved before the Respondent could resume practice.
"A further requirement of the Committee would be that the Respondent should make a disclosure to any new employer of the fact of her appearances before this Committee in January 2018 and in July 2018 and of the decisions of the Committee in relation to both such hearings. The final requirement of the Committee in this respect is that the respondent should not accept a 'sole charge position' at any time during her employment during this next period of postponement of sanction."
The Committee directed that the hearing be postponed for a further 12 months.
The Board of Trustees of the RCVS Charitable Trust is looking to recruit a registered veterinary nurse as a Trustee, to step into the shoes of the current VN Trustee, Mrs Tracy Mayne RVN, when she stands down in June.
Tracy, the VN partner of Redditch Vets4Pets, has been a trustee since 2005. She said: "I wanted to be a part of a Trust that had its finger on the pulse of what the profession needed to continue to evolve," says Tracy. "You need to stay long enough to learn the ropes, fulfil your ambitions for the role, fulfil the role for which you were appointed and then move on."
Applications are sought from registered veterinary nurses with suitable experience and outlooks, and the successful candidate will be expected to join the Board at the Trust's Annual General Meeting (AGM) in June 2012. Past or current experience of being a trustee is desirable however this is not necessary. All trustee roles are unpaid, with reasonable expenses such as travel being reimbursed.
The appointment is for a three year term, which may be renewed, and all trustees are expected to attend a minimum of three Board meetings, plus the June AGM, each year. Additional time will be needed to support veterinary nursing projects and develop collaborations with relevant individuals and organisations.
The Board is responsible for governance and policy making, as well as supporting the Director and a staff team of five.
RCVS Charitable Trust Director, Cherry Bushell said: "At a time when the Trust wants to develop more active support for veterinary nurses, this is an important appointment. We hope to recruit someone who has a strong vision and new ideas about how this ambition can be realised."
Application by CV and covering letter should be sent to the Trust Director, Cherry Bushell at c.bushell@rcvstrust.org.uk by Friday 27th April.
Informal enquiries for further information are welcomed and enquirers should contact Cherry Bushell on 0207 202 0714 or by email.
Ms Gatehouse faced two charges, the first being that she inaccurately assured another veterinary surgeon that she had vaccinated a horse against influenza and tetanus when she had not, and she subsequently failed to undertake adequate checks to confirm whether she had done so.
The second charge was that she later made a false entry in the same horse’s clinical records to cover up her previous inaccurate statement.
Ms Gatehouse admitted the facts alleged in relation to both charges and also admitted that in relation to the second charge she was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The Committee, having heard submissions from Counsel for the RCVS and Ms Gatehouse found her guilty of disgraceful conduct in relation to the first charge.
Under the first charge the Committee found that she had breached the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons by not keeping clear, accurate and detailed clinical and client records, and by acting in a manner that was likely to undermine public trust in the profession.
They also considered that her falsehood was unpremeditated, and that the decision was made in a moment of panic. Ultimately, however, by claiming the horse was vaccinated to another veterinary surgeon and not taking the necessary steps to confirm this, she failed to put the welfare of the animal first, potentially endangering it and any other horses it came into contact with, as well as potentially jeopardising the position of the veterinary surgeon she confirmed it to.
Having found Ms Gatehouse guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to both parts of the charge the Committee then considered its sanction against her. In mitigation the Committee considered the fact that she had been in practice for 22 years without any untoward conduct, the testimony of three witnesses who attested to her being an honest and trustworthy practitioner, and the fact that Ms Gatehouse was in a troublesome relationship with the complainant until June 2014 which led her to be reluctant to contact him to correct her initial confirmation.
In summing up Stuart Drummond, Chair of the Committee, said: "The Committee has considers that it is material to have regard to the general emotional state to which the Respondent was reduced by the controlling and debilitating conduct of her then partner when they were living together and the consequential loss of self-esteem and ability to stand up to him and his demands. The deleterious effect of an abusive relationship lingers after such a relationship ends.
"Taking into account this knowledge, the Committee considers that the period of suspension that would, in other circumstances, be entirely merited, can properly be reduced in this instance to reflect the fact that this veterinary surgeon would not have acted as she did during this period but for the fact that her judgement was adversely affected by her experience at the hands of her then former partner.
"The decision is that, whilst it is necessary, in order sufficiently to protect animals and the wider public interest, to impose a period of suspension from practice, that period can be reduced to one of two months. In so concluding the Committee wishes to make it clear that this decision reflects the special features of this case."
Ms Gatehouse can choose to appeal the decision after a period of 28 days.
On Monday, Kathy Kissick, current Veterinary Nurses Council member and former Head of School Veterinary Nursing and Farriery at Myerscough College, will give a talk entitled 'It’s not the job you do; it’s how you do the job'.
The talk will look at how clinical coaches can encourage their students not only to achieve their qualification, but also develop professional accountability, consider issues regarding fitness to practise and understand the links between professional, legal and ethical responsibilities and accountability.
The next day, RCVS Director of Veterinary Nursing Julie Dugmore (pictured right) and Jill Macdonald, VN Project Coordinator, will give an update on VN Futures and report the work done by its various working groups.
These working groups were set up shortly after the publication of the VN Futures Report in July 2016 to focus on areas such as retention and recruitment in the veterinary nursing workforce, Training Practices, developing meaningful career progression routes for the profession and developing ‘One Health’ links with other healthcare professions, including medical nurses.
Julie said: "Much of the work of the VN Futures project has been going on under the radar for the past few years, but with the appointment of Jill as our VN Futures Project Manager, and moving towards the deadline of the five-year VN Futures plan, we want to make sure the profession is aware of what has been happening and our plans for the next two years."
Finally, RCVS CEO Lizzie Lockett will give a talk about the Mind Matters Initiative. She'll explain how the project is aiming to improve the mental health and wellbeing of those in the veterinary team by offering mental health awareness training, trying to break down the stigma associated with mental ill-health and developing support resources and courses to help members of the veterinary team flourish and, where needed, get back on form.
She will also give an outline of current activities, provide tips on improving wellbeing in the practice and give information on how veterinary nurses can get involved in the project as well. Further information about the Initiative can be found at www.vetmindmatters.org