View all veterinary jobs
The annual renewal fee is due for payment on 1 November every year, although vet nurses have up to midnight on 31st December to pay before they are removed from the Register.
Of the 450 VNs who were removed for non-payment this year, some 150 have subsequently applied for restoration to the Register, paying a £123 fee to do so. The number of removals as a percentage of the whole VN profession stands at 2.7%, 0.8% higher than last year.
A list of those who have been removed from the Register on 1 January 2019, and who hadn’t restored prior to the 8 January, has been published to assist practices in making checks to ensure that all their veterinary nursing staff are still on the Register. This list can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/registration/check-the-register/about-the-vn-register/
If you have questions about how to restore yourself to the Register, you can contact the College’s Registration Department on 020 7202 0707 or registration@rcvs.org.uk.
For questions about paying the annual renewal fee or setting up a Direct Debit contact the RCVS Finance Department on 020 7202 0723 or finance@rcvs.org.uk
The nurse wrote to the College prior to the hearing to say that she would not be attending and she was not represented.
The College asked the Committee to proceed with the hearing, which it agreed to do.
The charge against her was that in 2025 she had been convicted, following a guilty plea, of burglary, contrary to section 9(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1968.
She was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 18 months and to an order to carry out unpaid work for 140 hours within the next 12 months; and to pay compensation of £761.20; and made subject to a restraining order.
The particulars of the offence, to which the nurse originally pleaded not guilty before changing her plea to guilty, were that in 2024, she had entered the practice premises as a trespasser and stole veterinary medication of an unknown value, including ketamine.
The Committee found the charge proved on the basis of her admission to the College that she entered a guilty plea at court.
The Committee noted that although she admitted entering a guilty plea, she had continued to deny taking ketamine, but the Committee accepted the court’s version of events and saw no need to investigate further.
Other drugs taken, as listed in the police summary, included methadone, fentanyl patches, buprenorphine, and medetomidine.
In determining the nurse's fitness to practise, the Committee considered the submissions of the College and noted that the defendant didn’t dispute the nature and circumstances of the offence leading to her conviction beyond claiming that she never took ketamine.
It also found that she breached parts 1.5 and 6.5 of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses relating to the responsible administering of medicines and the fact that veterinary nurses must not engage in any activities that would likely bring the profession into disrepute.
It also took into account the following aggravating factors:
It was found that her conduct fell far below the standard expected of a registered veterinary nurse and that her conviction was serious enough to render her unfit to practise.
In deciding upon a sanction, the Committee took into account all written evidence before it.
In addition to the aggravating factors, it also considered the nurse's "complete lack of insight", her lack of apology or remorse, her denials and the fact there was no evidence of remediation.
The only mitigating factor was that the nurse had no previous adverse disciplinary findings against her.
Paul Morris, chairing the committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was of the view that the nature and seriousness of [the veterinary nurse]'s behaviour, which led to the conviction, was fundamentally incompatible with being registered as a veterinary nurse.
"The conduct represented a serious departure from professional standards, in that this was a serious offence of dishonesty.
"[The veterinary nurse] has not demonstrated any remorse for her behaviour and instead has sought to blame others; she has demonstrated a complete lack of insight, especially in regard to the impact of her behaviour on public confidence and trust in the profession.
"In light of these conclusions, the Committee decided that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case was removal from the Register."
“The Committee determined that it was important that a clear message be sent that this sort of behaviour is wholly inappropriate and not to be tolerated.
"It brought discredit upon [the veterinary nurse] and discredit upon the profession.”
A record number of candidates stood in the RCVS Council election this year, and the results were much closer than usual.
Two candidates entirely new to the Council have been elected, one of whom - Amanda Boag - received the highest number of votes. The other - Chris Barker - also did well, coming in third place overall.
Three existing RCVS Council Members have been re-elected for a further four years, and Stephen May, who was formerly an appointed Council Member from the Royal Veterinary College, was also voted onto Council for the first time.
Of the three candidates standing for election to VN Council, one existing Member - Kathy Kissick - has been returned, and one new member - Elizabeth Figg - has been elected.
All successful candidates will take up or resume their seats at RCVS Day on 6 July 2012.
Turnouts for both elections remained low, with just 3,625 veterinary surgeons (15.1%) and 743 veterinary nurses (7.5%) choosing to exercise their right to vote.
By comparison, in 2011 voting figures were 3,887 (15.9%) and 723 (7.6%), respectively.
Veterinary surgeons' and veterinary nurses' use of online and text voting, rather than postal voting, increased again this year from 25% to 30.6%, and 12.9% to 20%, respectively.
The first charge related to his conviction on two counts of common assault by beating two individuals at an incident in December 2016, as a result of which he was made subject to a community order and a restraining order, as well as being fined and made to pay a victim surcharge and costs.
The second charge related to him undertaking, or attempting to undertake non-emergency surgery on the eyelid of one of the individuals referred to in the first charge, and administering, or attempting to administer, a Prescription-Only Veterinary Medicines to the same person.
The third charged related to an allegation that he had supplied the same individual with a Prescription-Only Medication other than in accordance with a valid prescription.
The second charge and third charges related to incidents which occurred some considerable time before the assault, not as a consequence of it.
At the outset of the hearing Mr Sutcliffe admitted the first and second charges against him and that these constituted serious professional misconduct. He denied the third charge. In relation to that charge the Committee found that, having considered the totality of the evidence, it was unable to be sure that the College had proved the allegation to the requisite standard of proof, namely so that the Committee was sure. Accordingly Charge 3 was dismissed.
The Committee decided that the convictions in the first charge rendered Mr Sutcliffe unfit to practise veterinary surgery and that his conduct in Charge 2 constituted serious professional misconduct.
The Committee then went on to consider sanction.
The Committee considered the aggravating features for both charges. For the first charge it considered the actual injury to one of his victims and risk of injury to the other, noting also that both of his victims were vulnerable people and one was a child, and that the overall incident during which the assaults occurred lasted over a seven hour period.
For the second charge, aggravating factors were that the non-emergency surgery performed by Mr Sutcliffe was wholly inappropriate, that there was a risk of injury to the individual on whom he performed the surgery and that his conduct was reckless.
The mitigating factors considered by the Committee were that Mr Sutcliffe recognised the gravity of the findings against him and demonstrated insight into the allegations, that the incident in charge 1, though prolonged, was an isolated one, that the incident in charge 2 was consensual and did not result in actual harm and that neither charge had any connection with Mr Sutcliffe’s veterinary practice, nor did they affect client care or animal welfare.
Professor Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "As recognised by the Committee, the respondent has displayed insight as to the seriousness of his behaviour. Having regard to the evidence of all the character witnesses and the written testimonials the Committee accepts that the respondent’s conduct as set out in charges 1 and 2 was wholly out of character and, therefore, there is no significant risk of repeat behaviour. The Committee considers that the respondent would be fit to return to practise, having regard to his excellent track record as a veterinary surgeon to date, after any period of suspension.
"Having regards to the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case, the Committee has decided that it is sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct to give a direction for suspension of the respondent’s name from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons.
"The Committee considers that the period of suspension must be sufficient to mark the seriousness of the charges but must be proportionate and fair in the circumstances of the case. The Committee has therefore concluded that the appropriate period of suspension is six months."
Mr Sutcliffe has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to appeal to the Privy Council.
The RCVS has appointed Nicola South to the new role of Customer Experience Manager, a new role intended to help improve the experience for vets, veterinary nurses and the public in their dealings with the College.
Nicola said: "I'm extremely excited and proud to be joining the staff at the RCVS, and at such a significant time, just as the First-Rate Regulator initiative is underway, which will lead to a change of focus in how we deliver our services to meet all of our customers' needs. My arrival has been met by a staff made up of extremely dedicated and passionate individuals, and I'm really looking forward to working as a team to deliver an improved customer experience for everyone."
CEO Nick Stace said: "Nicola brings to the College a wealth of customer service experience gained from the hotel and tourism industries. Improving our customer service delivery is a priority, and I am delighted to have Nicola on board who will help to champion these improvements across the organisation."
Nicola joins the RCVS from Orbit Group Ltd, where she was Service Excellence Advisor for the East and South Region.
Kit was appointed by RCVS Council at its June meeting, making him responsible for maintaining an overview of the College’s financial affairs, ensuring the College’s financial viability, and making sure proper records and procedures are maintained.
Kit replaces Dr Amanda Boag who was elected Junior Vice-President by RCVS Council at its March meeting. He has been an RCVS Council Member since 2013 and currently sits on the Standards Committee, as well as lecturing, writing and other projects such as teaching at the local primary school. He also works three days a week seeing clinical cases in both referral and primary care practices.
Kit said: "I am very honoured to have been appointed Treasurer, and look forward to continuing Amanda’s careful stewardship of the College finances with the support of other Council members and the team at Belgravia House.
"Due to uncertainties surrounding the impact of Brexit and increasing inflation, RCVS Council decided at its June meeting to increase the annual renewal fees for veterinary surgeons. I am confident that this will keep the College finances in a healthy state, and I look forward to building on Amanda’s legacy ensuring that the College remains steady over the course of my tenure."
At RCVS Day Amanda will also be made Junior Vice-President, and Dr Stephen May will take up the position of RCVS President for 2017-2018.
The work done by vetnurse.co.uk and vetsurgeon.org attempted to identify the sorts of unpleasant behaviour that veterinary surgeons and and nurses found themselves on the receiving end of, and the impact that it had on them. It was not, however, able to quantify the prevalence of these types of behaviour other than to the extent that there were 677 reports.
The new survey of over 650 vet nurses and student vet nurses found that not only did 96% agree or strongly agree that bullying and incivility is a serious problem in the profession, but 70% of respondents had personally experienced a mental health concern as a result.
Other findings from the survey were:
The full findings of the survey will be revealed at the MMI Student Veterinary Nurse Wellbeing Discussion Forum, taking place on Wednesday 3rd November.
Attendees will have the opportunity to discuss the challenges highlighted in the survey and how they can be addressed. The results will also be published at a session led by Jill McDonald, VN Futures Project Coordinator at BVNA Congress, taking place Saturday 2nd – Monday 4th October.
Lisa Quigley, Mind Matters Initiative Manager, said: “A number of our survey findings are extremely concerning, particularly the high levels of bullying, incivility and discrimination reported by participants. We conducted the survey with the intention of finding out more about what systemic issues across workplace practices were impacting on the profession’s mental health.
"We want to thank everyone who took part and shared their experiences with us. There were some upsetting accounts shared with us about experiences of bullying and discrimination – no one should go through this at any point in their life, let alone at their place of work.
"Decisive action needs to be taken to tackle this and we will be using the findings of the survey to help form our 2022-2027 strategy and decide what resources and training we create for the profession. Supporting the wellbeing of veterinary nurses and student veterinary nurses is one of our key priorities, and will be part of all future MMI activities.”
“I would encourage as many veterinary nurses and student veterinary nurses as possible to attend the upcoming Student Veterinary Nurse Wellbeing Discussion Forum and our session at BVNA to have your voice heard about what steps need to be taken to improve the mental wellbeing of the profession.
"We recognise that these results may bring some difficult emotions to the fore for many people, and we would encourage anyone who has experienced bullying or discrimination to seek help from an organisation such as Vetlife or the National Bullying Helpline.
"I would urge anyone who witnesses bullying or discrimination in the workplace to speak out, wherever it is safe to do so. This takes immense courage, but it is only by calling out this behaviour that it can begin to be addressed. We will be launching Active Bystander training in early 2022, to equip people with the confidence to call out unacceptable behaviour, and the skills to proactively support colleagues who have been targeted.”
Matthew Rendle, Chair of the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council, added: “As a veterinary nurse some of these results were a difficult read and I would like to thank those student vet nurses and newly qualified vet nurses who came forward with great honesty and bravery with their views and experiences, as it couldn’t have been easy.
“We take these matters very seriously and opening up the conversation is an important first step. I hope that, following these results, we can take look at things such as strengthening reporting mechanisms for bullying and discrimination and encouraging better workplace practices to mitigate against these incidents.
“While it’s easy to focus on the negatives, I do think that these survey results have given us positive steps to build on, not least that people know how to access mental health support so they’re not suffering in silence and the role that our amazing clinical coaches are playing in supporting people with their mental health, and how we can better give them the tools for this support.”
The RCVS has announced the members that will comprise its new Audit and Risk Committee, which was set up following recommendations in the RCVS Overspend Review Group's report (otherwise known as the McKelvey Report).
The Audit and Risk Committee will support RCVS Council in meeting its oversight responsibilities, including:
Its members are:
Non-Council membersElizabeth Butler (Chairman) is a practising Chartered Accountant who has held a wide variety of non-executive appointments, bringing both professional expertise and a depth of understanding of risk and governance. Among other roles, she has chaired the audit committees of the Royal College of Nursing and Hyde Housing Association, and currently chairs the audit committees of the Electoral Commission and the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, she is also chairman of Lewisham Healthcare NHS Trust.
David Hughes is a chartered accountant and a former senior partner who has extensive expertise in financial reporting, accounting, auditing, risk management and governance issues. He is currently a Non-Executive Director and Chairman of the Audit Committee for the Highways Agency and a member of the Department for Transport Audit Committee.
Judith Rutherford has five years' experience as a Non-Executive Director and as a member of the Audit Committee in a community Healthcare and Primary Care Trust within the regulated environment of the NHS. She is currently Director of an organisation that provides interim management and consultancy to the private and public sectors.
RCVS Council membersRichard Davis is a Privy Council-appointed member of RCVS Council. He farms 104 hectares in North Bedfordshire and has been a director of First Milk Ltd for seven years. He has also been a director of Westbury Dairies Ltd, where he was Chairman of the Audit Committee. Richard has served on the audit committee of Assured Food Standards (Red Tractor) for the last six years and served as the Chairman of Assured Dairy Farms for six years (the scheme sets, audits and monitors production, welfare and environmental standards for most UK processors, and over 12,000 dairy farms).
Lynne Hill MRCVS is Chief Executive of Langford Veterinary Services Ltd, University of Bristol, and was previously Head of the Clinical Services Department at the Royal Veterinary College. Prior to that, Lynne was European Marketing Manager for Hill's Pet Nutrition. She is an elected member of RCVS Council and was President in 2005-6.
The non-Council members of the Committee were appointed by a panel chaired by Sir David Barnes, Chairman of the Governance Review Group.
The new Committee, which is accountable to Council and will report at least annually, will meet for the first time in early autumn.
Jacqui Molyneux, RCVS President said: "I am pleased that the new Audit and Risk Committee is now in place. It should offer reassurance to both members and the public that the framework via which Council's activities are scrutinised is robust."
Under Schedule 3, vets can delegate medical treatment and minor surgery (not involving entry into a body cavity) to registered veterinary nurses and student veterinary nurses under certain circumstances.
However, following an RCVS survey of the profession to gauge how well both vets and vet nurses understood the provisions of Schedule 3, the College says it was clear that both groups, but especially vets, could benefit from additional guidance and greater clarity.
Following the publication of the survey report, the RCVS Veterinary Nursing Schedule 3 Working Party made a number of recommendations, including the production of a number of case studies (available via www.rcvs.org.uk/schedule3) and a reference poster to help veterinary surgeons in making decisions on delegation in practice.
An A3/A4 poster setting out the principles of delegation has now been prepared and will be printed and posted to all UK veterinary practice premises this autumn.
Ian Holloway, RCVS Director of Communications, who helped develop the poster with the RCVS Standards Committee and the College’s Standards & Advice Team, said: "It was clear from the survey results that we could do more to help vets and vet nurses understand and remember the principles of delegation under Schedule 3, so hopefully our six-point checklist, using the memorable mnemonic 'SUPERB', will do just that.
"If the poster can be placed in a prominent position in the practice setting, we hope it will become a handy, everyday reference tool for all veterinary professionals, and help vets remember the six questions they need to consider before delegating work to their VN colleagues.
SUPERB stands for:
Specific procedure – is the procedure medical treatment or minor surgery not involving entry into a body cavity?
Under care – is the animal under your care?
Person – can you delegate to this person?
Experience – does the RVN/SVN feel capable, and have sufficient competence and expertise?
Risks – have you considered the risks specific to this case?
Be there – are you available to direct or supervise as necessary?
Only if you, as a vet, can answer 'yes' to all six questions, can you delegate the job to an RVN or SVN.
The poster will also available to download from www.rcvs.org.uk/schedule3 where further resources about delegation are available, including links to the relevant chapter of the supporting guidance to the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct and the Schedule 3 case studies.
I think anything which gives veterinary surgeons confidence to delegate more to veterinary nurses is to be warmly welcomed. But what do you think? Do you think this poster would encourage your vets to delegate more, less, or the same? Discuss here.
The candidates for this year's RCVS VN Council election have been announced.
Three veterinary nurses are standing, and VNs may vote for up to two candidates to fill the two available seats. One candidate is a current member of the RCVS VN Council seeking re-election. Of the 17 members comprising RCVS VN Council, eight are elected veterinary nurses, six are veterinary surgeon members (including three from RCVS Council), and there is one Lantra representative and two lay members. Each elected VN member is appointed for a four-year term. This year's candidates are:
Voting opens from Friday 9 March and all veterinary nurses eligible to vote should receive their ballot papers shortly. Votes must be received by 5pm on 27 April 2012 and, as in previous years, can be cast online, by post, or by text message
RCVS Council agreed, in principle, to the sale of Belgravia House and for the College and its London-based staff to move to different premises at its November meeting.
The sale of the building and the move will be overseen by the College’s Estate Strategy Project Board headed by former RCVS President Barry Johnson and including current and former RCVS Council members and RCVS staff.
The RCVS has been based at its current premises in 62-64 Horseferry Road for 25 years, but says it now needs more up-to-date and modern facilities to accommodate a projected increase in the number of staff.
The College says it has considered a number of alternatives, including expanding the current premises by adding or expanding floors. However, due to the fact that the building is in a conservation area, it has become clear that any such expansions would be unlikely to get planning permission from Westminster Council.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS Chief Executive, said: "For a number of years it has become apparent that it is fast approaching the time at which our current premises will no longer be fit for purpose due to an increase in the number of RCVS staff – something that is projected to continue in the future – the ongoing need to use the building for Disciplinary Hearings, which take over the lion’s share of available meeting space, and the need for better and more modern facilities.
"Even putting our need for increased space on one side, Belgravia House requires major refurbishment in key areas such as air-conditioning and lifts, which would require staff to vacate the premises for up to 18 months, which would be costly and disruptive.
"We are therefore pleased that Council has recognised the need for the College to move somewhere that better reflects our needs and, over the coming months, we will be exploring a number of different options for new premises.
"In parallel to this we have put out an invitation to tender for agents to manage the sale of the building. The plan is for the arrangement to include lease-back so that we have time to find a suitable premises and enabling us to act quickly when we do."
Any organisations that are interested in putting forward a tender to manage the sale of the building should contact Corrie McCann, RCVS Director of Operations, on 020 7202 0724. Responses to tender are required by 30 November 2018.
Photo: Copyright Google 2018
On 23rd March, the Government demanded that the majority of public-facing businesses close their doors. Veterinary surgeries, however, have been exempted and are allowed to remain open.
However, the number of clients seen face-to-face should be kept to an absolute minimum and veterinary teams must insist on strict social distancing measures at all times.
In addition, the RCVS/BVA say that:
Routine treatments should not be carried out until further notice.
You may offer your clients advice and consultation services via remote means, including prescribing POM-V medicines where appropriate.
Clients and/or veterinary professionals should only travel to see animals if judged essential to do so.
Animals should only be seen in emergencies or where, in the judgement of the veterinary surgeon, urgent assessment and/or treatment is needed in order to reduce the risk of patient deterioration to the point where it may become an emergency in the near future (ie within the three-week time frame currently laid out by the Government for these measures).
Veterinary professionals should exercise judgement as to when it is necessary for you to see an animal and/or their owner in person. has updated its FAQs for veterinary professionals, which can be found here:
The College has updated its FAQs for veterinary professionals, which can be found here: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/advice-and-guidance/coronavirus-covid-19/
The BVA is now developing some further guidance to provide examples of what constitutes routine, urgent and emergency care.
The DC heard how, in December 2022, a labrador called Bella had been stolen from its owner.
That same month, someone who was involved in the theft presented Bella to Dr Kashiv, according to news reports telling him they'd taken the animal because it had been abused.
Dr Kashiv performed surgery to remove her microchip, so she could be re-homed without being traced.
Although there was no suggestion that Dr Khashiv had been involved in the theft, it was alleged that he knew the animal had been stolen.
In January 2024, after pleading guilty, Dr Kashiv was convicted of removing the microchip, contrary to section 5(3) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, at Stevenage Magistrates’ Court.
He was sentenced to a community order with an unpaid work requirement of 50 hours to be completed within 12 months, and ordered to pay a surcharge to fund victim services of £114 and costs of £85.
Dr Khashiv faced four charges at the RCVS disciplinary hearing, the first being that his conviction rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
The second charge was that in July 2024, at Stevenage Magistrates’ Court, Dr Kashiv had been made subject to a 5-year Criminal Behaviour Order (CBO) for failing to keep dogs he owned under control and failing to comply with previous orders.
The third charge was that Dr Kashiv’s conduct with regard to the microchip was dishonest, in that he removed it to conceal the labrador’s identity.
The final charge was that Dr Kashiv failed to keep adequate clinical records for the labrador and his conduct was thereby i) misleading and/or ii) dishonest.
From the outset, Dr Kashiv admitted charges one and two and some aspects of charge four.
However, he initially denied that his conduct was at any stage misleading or dishonest and did not accept that his conviction rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon or that the admitted charges amount to serious professional misconduct.
In a later submission, Dr Kashiv no longer disputed that his conviction rendered him unfit to practise, or that his behaviour in charges two, three and four amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee considered that in respect of his conviction, Dr Kashiv had breached paragraphs 1.1, 1.3, 6.1, 6.4 and 6.5 of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons.
It then took into account mitigating and aggravating factors.
The Committee found no mitigating factors but found the following aggravating factors:
The Committee was satisfied that this conduct fell far below the standard expected of a registered veterinary surgeon and that this rendered him unfit to practise.
In deciding on whether his conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee again took into account submissions made both by representatives for the College and for Dr Kashiv, as well as the fact that Dr Kashiv no longer disputed the assertion that his conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee found that Dr Kashiv had breached paragraphs 2.4, 2.5, 6.1, 6.4 and 6.5 of the Code in relation to charges two, three and four.
The Committee again did not find any mitigating factors but found the following aggravating factors:
With regards to charges three and four, Dr Kashiv performed a prohibited procedure on a labrador which was unjustified and resulted in a criminal conviction.
The Committee found that in carrying out the procedure he had acted dishonestly – he had removed the chip in order to conceal the identity of a pet that he knew had been taken from its home.
The dishonesty with regards to not completing any formal clinical records also related directly to his practice as a veterinary surgeon, as part of a cover-up so that nobody would know what had happened to the labrador at the practice.
The Committee was satisfied that Dr Kashiv’s conduct in relation to the labrador amounted to serious professional misconduct.
On deciding on a sanction, the Committee took into account all evidence and documents provided as well as testimonials together with submissions made on behalf of Dr Kashiv and matters of personal mitigation.
In terms of aggravating factors, it found all those already listed in findings for fitness to practise and serious professional misconduct, as well as previous convictions and adverse findings of the College and the fact that Dr Kashiv showed limited insight into his actions.
In terms of mitigating factors, it considered:
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was of the view that the nature and seriousness of Dr Kashiv’s behaviour, which led to the conviction, was fundamentally incompatible with being registered as a veterinary surgeon.”
He added: “In light of these conclusions, the Committee decided that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case was removal from the Register.
"This would not be the case if the Committee were considering the CBO matter alone, when a lesser sanction would have been appropriate.
"However, his actions with regard to the labrador, his limited insight and the fear that he could repeat such behaviour meant that removal was necessary in this case.
“In reaching this decision the Committee recognised the negative impact this would have on Dr Kashiv.
"The Committee had considered with great care all the mitigating factors and the positive statements made about him in the testimonials provided.
"However, the need to protect animal welfare, the reputation of the profession and thus the wider public interest, outweighed Dr Kashiv’s interests and the Committee concluded that removal was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15069309/Vegan-vet-Animal-Rebellion-activist-steal-pet-dog.html
Dr De Armas Jimenez faced four charges against him, that:
On or around 22 April 2022 or 23 April 2022, in relation to a cat, he a) failed to obtain informed consent to sedate/anaesthetise the cat and/or did so without the owner’s consent (admitted), b) failed to take adequate steps when the cat required emergency attention (admitted), and c) failed to provide adequate details to the owner following the cat’s death (admitted).
On or around 22 April 2022 or 23 April 2022, he a) failed to record adequate clinical record details of the cat’s sedation/anaesthetic (admitted), b) recorded when the cat became cyanotic, that i) a tube had been passed in order to intubate (proved not to have occured) and ii) chest compressions had been given when this was not the case (not proved that it did not happen), and c) failed to make adequate clinical records in relation to differential diagnoses and proposed treatment plan (not proved).
That his conduct in relation to charge 2(a) and/or 2(b) was a) dishonest and/or b) misleading. (Admitted his conduct was both dishonest and misleading in relation to 2(a), and the Committee found proved that his conduct was dishonest and/or misleading in relation to 2(b)(i)).
Between 22 April 2022 and 23 April 2022, he failed to have any professional indemnity insurance in place (admitted).
Dr De Armas Jimenez admitted most of the charges again him.
The Committee found that his actions had breached a number of sections of the RCVS Code of Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons and amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In deciding on a sanction, the Committee took into account the aggravating factor that Dr De Armas Jimenez had caused actual harm to the animal.
Mitigating factors included that he had no previous disciplinary history, that he had been working for eight years as a veterinary surgeon in the UK without complaint, that he admitted most of the charges, that he'd made subsequent efforts to avoid repetition by no longer working night shifts or locuming, and finally that the incident related to one animal.
The Committee also noted that he'd shown appreciable insight and remorse, and took into account positive character references.
Paul Morris, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Whilst the misconduct in this case involved breaches of the RCVS Code, caused serious harm to both the cat and the client, and involved dishonesty which was concealed, the Committee decided that a lengthy suspension could take account of the seriousness of these matters and meet the wider public interest.”
He added: “In deciding on this period of suspension, the Committee took into account both mitigating and aggravating factors and the mitigation Dr De Armas Jimenez had put before it.
"It was not persuaded that a shorter period of suspension would properly reflect the seriousness of the proven misconduct.
"It concluded that this period of suspension had a deterrent effect and sent a signal as to how serious the Committee had found the misconduct to be.
"It also took into account Dr De Armas Jimenez’s remorse and insight.
“However, in order that the wider public interest was upheld and to reflect the Committee’s view regarding the seriousness of the proven misconduct, the Committee determined that the proportionate sanction and period of suspension should be a suspension order of eight months.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/
Ms Evans was charged with causing or allowing a veterinary nurse colleague to order a prescription-only medicine from a practice supplier knowing that it was intended for human use, and made a false entry prescribing the medication on the clinical records of a cat belonging to her nurse colleague.
She was also charged with falsely recording details purporting to be the results of the blood tests on cat and then entering notes on the animal's clinical history which falsely indicated that there had been a meaningful result, and then indicating to the animal's owner that there had been a meaningful result, when in fact the tests had failed to produce any meaningful results.
The final charge was that her conduct in making the false entry for the prescription-only medication, and all elements of the second charge was dishonest and misleading.
Ms Evans admitted the first charge on the basis that she had allowed rather than caused the order to be made, all the other facts of this charge were admitted.
She admitted the second charge on the basis that she had failed to inform the cat’s owner of the test results, all the other facts of this charge were admitted.
She also admitted that elements of her conduct had been dishonest and misleading.
Having found the charges proven by Ms Evans’ admissions, the Committee considered whether her admitted actions and conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Ms Evans, through her legal counsel, accepted that the admitted charges passed the threshold for serious professional misconduct, though that question still needed to be determined independently by the Committee.
The Committee found that Dr Evans’ conduct had breached several key parts of the Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance, particularly around honesty and integrity.
It also found aggravating factors in this case, including the risk to human health by allowing the prescription-only medication to be ordered knowing it was for human use, the abuse of her professional position, the breach of client trust, the potential adverse impact on the welfare of the cat for whom she falsified the blood test records, and the potential adverse impact on the welfare of the cat for whom she had falsely recorded the prescription-only medicine.
The Committee found no mitigating factors relating to the facts.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said in relation to the first charge: “In the Committee’s view, this irresponsible approach to a prescription-only medicine risked human health, potentially compromised an animal’s welfare, since the clinical record suggested the cat had been given Fluconazole when it had not, constituted an abuse of the trust placed in her as a registered veterinary surgeon and was in breach of legal provisions designed to safeguard human health.
“Such behaviour falls far below the standard expected of a registered veterinary surgeon, undermines public confidence in the profession and would be considered deplorable by colleagues and the public alike.
"The Committee was thus satisfied that charge 1 on its own amounts to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
He added: “Acting dishonestly runs contrary to one of the most fundamental principles of the profession.
"The public need to know that they can rely on the honesty and integrity of the people to whom they entrust the care and welfare of their animals.
“Further, Dr Evans’ conduct in both incidents had the potential to undermine public confidence in the profession of veterinary surgery and bring the profession into disrepute.
"In all the circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that Dr Evans’ behaviour as reflected in charge 2 fell far short of the standard expected of a veterinary surgeon and amounted to disgraceful conduct.
“Accordingly, the Committee found proved the allegation that Dr Evans was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
Having found serious professional misconduct in relation to all charges, the Committee considered what the most appropriate and proportionate sanction would be for Ms Evans’ actions and conduct.
In doing so, it considered 137 positive references and testimonials from Dr Evans’ professional colleagues and clients, poor staff morale at the practice at the time as well as compelling, exceptional evidence relating to Dr Evans’s health at the time of the two incidents.
In mitigation, the Committee considered the fact that Dr Evans had no previous disciplinary history and had a hitherto unblemished career as a veterinary surgeon; her open and frank admissions; the circumstances of pressures at work exacerbated by Dr Evans’ desire to please everyone and not let anyone down; the fact that Dr Evans was feeling very isolated; the significant insight into her conduct and its impact; effective and targeted remediation to ensure there would be no likelihood of the conduct being repeated; genuine expressions or remorse and apology; support from her employers; and the very significant number of positive testimonials.
Summing up the Committee’s decision on sanction, Mr Morris said “In all the, somewhat exceptional, circumstances of this case, the Committee was satisfied that a reprimand and a warning not to behave in this way again, would provide adequate protection to animals, as it was satisfied Dr Evans was most unlikely to ever make such a flawed set of decisions again.
“The Committee was satisfied that Dr Evans does not represent a risk to animals going forward, indeed from the character evidence it is clear that she always puts the welfare of animals first.
"She has also shown, since this episode, that she can work under pressure and not resort to making bad decisions and thus the Committee considered the wider public interest would best be served in this case by a reprimand and a warning.
“Notwithstanding the serious nature of Dr Evans' conduct, the Committee was satisfied that a fully informed member of the public would not be shocked if Dr Evans were allowed to continue to practise.
“The decision of this Committee is, therefore, that Dr Evans be reprimanded and warned about her behaviour.
"Dr Evans should, however, be under no illusion of how serious it is to have a finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect made against her and she should not take lightly the decision of this Committee to reprimand and warn her.”
Mr Chaney was charged with stealing Trazadone and Metacam from the Hampstead practice he worked at, and of unlawfully possessing Trazadone and Metacam. He was also charged with unlawfully administering Butorphanol to a dog and failing to record the administration of the drug in the dogs records. He was also charged with making and deleting false entries into the clinical records of his own dog to the effect that it had been seen by a vet at the practice and that Metacam had been prescribed. The final charge was that his conduct over the false records was dishonest and misleading.
The Committee heard that Mr Chaney’s conduct in relation to the first two charges was discovered when, in July 2018, the Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs (Defra), accompanied by police officers, executed a warrant (for unrelated matters) on the property where he lived. During the course of the search, police officers found Metacam and Trazadone in Mr Chaney’s bedroom which did not seem to have a prescription and so Defra officers launched an investigation.
During the course of this investigation, a Defra investigator was also provided with a video and messages that indicated Mr Chaney had unlawfully administered Butorphanol to a Husky dog in frustration with the animal as it was being too noisy.
The Committee heard that, in November 2018, Mr Chaney accepted a police caution in relation to his possession of Trazadone and Metacam, and the unlawful administration of Butorphanol. The Committee also heard that following the police attending his property and finding the medicines, Mr Chaney went on to create false records at the practice in relation to the examination of his dog in order to justify his unlawful possession of the drugs.
The Committee found all the charges against Mr Chaney proven.
The Committee then went on to consider if the charges, taken both individually and in totality, amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional capacity.
Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee had no doubt that administering a sedative to an animal that required prescription by a veterinary surgeon and then failing to record it in the clinical record with the resultant risk to the animal’s welfare due to lack of knowledge of the administration fell far below the expected standard.
"The Committee also considered that possession of prescription only medicines by a registered veterinary nurse, without the sanction of law, having stolen the same from a practice also fell far below the expected standard.
“The Committee also considered that tampering with the clinical record for a dog, in order to create a misleading impression and in doing so dishonestly, was conduct which fell far below the expected standard.
“Taken as a whole, the Committee considered that Mr Chaney’s conduct had fallen far below the expected standard.”
The Committee therefore found him guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional capacity in relation to all seven charges.
It next went on to consider what sanction, if any, to impose taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors.
In considering the aggravating factors, the Committee took into account that Mr Chaney’s conduct had presented a risk of injury to the animal and that much of his conduct was pre-meditated. It also considered that Mr Chaney’s conduct involved a breach of trust to both the practice where he was employed and the owner of the Husky, and it was also an abuse of position in gaining access to and stealing medication. Lastly, because the charges related to two separate incidents, there was a common thread in Mr Chaney disregarding rules on veterinary medicines.
In mitigation, the Committee considered that Mr Chaney had reflected on and gained some insight into his behaviour, and acknowledged he had made admissions at the outset of the hearing, including apologising for and showing regret about aspects of his conduct.
However, the Committee did not believe he had addressed his understanding of the effect that this conduct had on the risk to animals, the standards of the profession or the maintenance of public confidence in the profession. In mitigation the Committee also considered a number of positive character references and his previous good character.
Judith Way said: “The Committee determined that it would not be sufficient in the circumstances of the case, to satisfy the public interest to suspend the Respondent’s registration. In its view this case involved a serious departure from identified professional standards. The disregard had been deliberate, in relation to ignoring legislation in respect of prescription-only medication and dishonesty in stealing medication.
"There was evidence of attitudinal issues in relation to that behaviour and insufficient evidence of the development of insight. The dishonesty in relation to the clinical record relating to dog O [his own dog] had been an attempt to conceal earlier dishonesty relating to the theft of the medication. In administering the Butorphanol to dog L [the Husky], Mr Chaney had been putting his own interests in quieting the dog ahead of the dog’s interests, which would have required checking with a veterinary surgeon as to appropriate steps.
"The Committee acknowledged that, by directing removal, there would likely be professional reputational damage to Mr Chaney and possible financial loss. However, in the view of the Committee the requirements of the public interest outweighed these factors.”
Accordingly, the Registrar of the RCVS was directed to remove Mr Chaney’s name from the Register of Veterinary Nurses.
Full details can be found here: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/
At first glance, one might ask why? After all, who - other than the pilot - would fly with Thomas Cook sober?
However, there's a world of difference between being not entirely sober and Ms Heyes's level of intoxication, which according to the judge at Greater Manchester Magistrates Court, made her 'every passenger's worst nightmare', and earned her a sentence of 80 hours community service, a victim surcharge of £80 and £250 in costs.
At the start of her disciplinary hearing, Ms Heyes admitted the facts of her 2020 conviction, but denied that the conviction rendered her unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse.
The Committee then considered whether Ms Heyes's conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Disciplinary Guidance states: “A conviction may be related to professional or personal behaviour and whether it renders a respondent unfit to practise is a matter of judgment for the Disciplinary Committee.
"Behaviour unconnected with the practice of veterinary surgery can cause concerns about the protection of animals or the wider public interest.”
The Committee concluded that the conviction and underlying behaviour was sufficiently serious that it required a finding that Ms Heyes was unfit to practise veterinary nursing on public interest grounds and that it also breached Code 6.5 of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses which states: ‘Veterinary nurses must not engage in any activity or behaviour that would be likely to bring the profession into disrepute or undermine public confidence in the profession’.
The Committee then considered the most appropriate sanction for Ms Heyes, taking into account the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors.
Aggravating factors included the risk Ms Heyes caused to passengers, including children and that she had behaved recklessly, falling far below the standard to be expected of a member of the veterinary nursing profession.
In mitigation, the Committee considered this was a single and isolated incident, Ms Heyes had no previous disciplinary findings against her and following her conviction she had shown developing insight.
It also noted that she had continued to practise as a competent and dedicated veterinary nurse.
Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee decided to reprimand Ms Heyes because of its finding that the charge amounted to disgraceful conduct and rendered Ms Heyes unfit to practise.
"Such a sanction was necessary in the Committee’s view because the conviction brought the profession into disrepute.
"Whilst the charge was not so serious as to require suspension or removal from the register, the Committee decided it is necessary to issue a formal warning to Ms Heyes as to her future conduct.
“Taking into account the overall circumstances of the case including the positive references and the fact that a number of mitigating factors set out in the Disciplinary Committee Sanctions Guidance were present in this case, the Committee was satisfied that this sanction would meet the public interest and protect the reputation of the profession and uphold standards within the profession; thereby maintaining public confidence in the College as the regulator for veterinary nurses.”
The full details of the hearing and the Committee’s decision can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Mr Seymour-Hamilton was originally struck off in 1994 after his Kent practice was found to be unhygienic and unsterile with poor record keeping.
However, he has always maintained that the reason his premises were unhygienic and unsterile was because they were closed.
As in previous applications, he said his reason for applying for restoration was to help him gain recognition for his alleged herbal and natural remedy discoveries and that he had no intention of going back into general practice.
As with previous applications, the Committee said that Mr Seymour-Hamilton has shown no real insight into the conduct underlying the original findings and nor has he shown insight into matters identified by previous restoration hearings.
The Committee also considered that Mr Seymour-Hamilton has been off the Register for some 31 years and would therefore need prolonged, intensive, formal retraining to ensure that he was now fit to practise, without which he might pose a risk to animal welfare.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton's case was not helped by the fact that he indicated that he had practised veterinary surgery while off the Register – including conducting two spay procedures in Calais, France, and treating two of his own dogs for cancer.
He also referred to having cultured faecal bacteria in a witness’ kitchen.
The Committee felt it was concerning that Mr Seymour-Hamilton thought these things were compatible with being on the Register and upholding the professional standards expected of a veterinary surgeon.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Mr Seymour-Hamilton still lacks an understanding as to why he has not been restored in the past.
"Apart from additional CPD, he has not set about effectively addressing any of his shortcomings.
"He relies passionately on his research, yet he does not support that research with any peer-reviewed publications, indeed all his attempts to gain recognition have been rebuffed.”
He added: “The Committee is firmly of the view that after such a prolonged period of failing to be reinstated as a veterinary surgeon, Mr Seymour-Hamilton has to face the reality that his continued applications, taking up time, resources and expense (which is ultimately borne by all those veterinary surgeons who are on the Register), are vexatious and ultimately unlikely to succeed.
“Whilst the College cannot prevent him from continuing to apply to be restored to the Register, Mr Seymour-Hamilton should by now realise that this is not a good use of the College’s finite resources.
"He is now 86 years old and has not practised for over thirty years and in fact has now been off the Register for longer than he was on it.
"This is now the twelfth time he has been found to be not fit to be restored to the Register.
"The Committee hopes Mr Seymour-Hamilton will now take time seriously to reflect and take into account the impact to all concerned of his continued applications, before deciding to submit any more.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
Miss Herdman faced three charges.
The first was that she indicated to a friend that she would supply diazepam and/or tramadol for use by their husband.
The second was that she supplied diazepam and/or tramadol and/or gabapentin.
The third was that she gave advice on the dosages of diazepam and/or tramadol and/or gabapentin.
Miss Herdman was not present at the hearing and was unrepresented, but the Committee determined that it was appropriate to proceed in her absence as she had been notified, was aware that the hearing was taking place and her absence was voluntary.
However, Miss Herdman had been in contact to indicate her pleas to the charges.
She admitted the intention to supply diazepam and/or tramadol and that she had provided advice on the dosages.
She also admitted that she had supplied diazepam but strongly denied that she had supplied tramadol and/or gabapentin.
Taking all the evidence into account (including messages sent by Miss Herdman and her admissions), the Committee found proven the charges in relation to the intent to supply and the advice on dosages.
The Committee also found proven the charge in relation to the supply of diazepam, but found not proved the charge relating to the supply of tramadol and gabapentin for several reasons, including the fact that the messages sent by Miss Herdman did not point unequivocally to her actually suppling each of the drugs to which she referred.
There was no suggestion that the diazepam was stolen from her place of work.
The Committee found that Miss Herdman’s actions had breached paragraphs 1.5 and 6.5 of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses.
The committee judged that there were a number of aggravating features of Miss Herdman’s conduct, including that she was not qualified or authorised to prescribe medication to animals, let alone to human beings and that providing a controlled drug to a person who was already taking various painkilling medications was reckless.
The Committee also felt that a reasonable and informed member of the public would be very concerned to learn that a veterinary nurse had supplied a controlled drug to a friend for their personal use.
Regarding the sanction for Miss Herdman, Paul Morris, chairing the Veterinary Nursing Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Drawing all the material together, and considering the matter as a whole, the Committee had to impose a proportionate sanction for an isolated incident of serious professional misconduct which arose out of a misguided attempt to help a friend.
"The conduct in question was entirely out of keeping with Miss Herdman’s usual practice and there is no real risk that it will be repeated.
"However, this case was much too serious to take no further action and no useful purpose would be served by postponing a sanction.
“The Committee considered that a warning or reprimand would not be sufficient to satisfy the public interest as veterinary nurses are trusted by the public to deal with medication responsibly and failure to do constitutes a severe breach of trust.
“The Committee therefore considered a period of suspension sufficient to meet the public interest in maintaining the reputation of the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct for members of the profession.
“The Committee also considered whether a removal order would be appropriate but concluded it would be disproportionate and that such a step would remove from the profession an experienced, competent and valuable veterinary nurse for no discernible benefit.
“It was decided that Miss Herdman’s registration be suspended for a period of three months – a period which is sufficient to mark the gravity of the misconduct while taking into account the circumstances in which it arose.”
The model for the forecast was developed by the College with the Institute of Employment Studies using data from the RCVS Registers, the 2019 and 2024 Surveys of the Professions, Office for National Statistics data for projected economic growth and the PDSA’s Animal Wellbeing (PAW) Reports.
However, the model does not take account of the impact of the increasing costs of veterinary care on pet ownership trends, the full effect of which may not yet have been felt.
The main predictions of the model are:
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS Chief Executive Officer, said: “In 2021, there were clear concerns about there being a workforce crisis within the veterinary professions, and while that certainly seemed to be the case, and is likely to continue to be so in the short-term, according to this model the future picture for the professions looks much better in most areas of veterinary practice.
“We are aware that there may be some concerns about the implications of the model, particularly concerning the potential oversupply of veterinary nurses.
"While we stand by the robustness of the data, demography is not destiny, and with the planned enhancement of the veterinary nurse role, and the likelihood of suppressed demand due to prior shortages, it is likely that the number of veterinary nursing roles will expand to encompass the number of veterinary nurses available to work in it.
“Finally, we are aware that there are also some limitations to the model in its current form, for example, in terms of regional data.
"This is a work in progress, and we will continue to update and improve the model as and when new data allows.”
The workforce modelling report is available to download from www.rcvs.org.uk/publications
The individual was granted anonymity by the Committee to protect their and their family members’ safety.
They had been convicted in court in March 2022 of three charges related to indecent images of children and sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment suspended for 24 months, with rehabilitation activities of a maximum 35 days, 12 months mental health treatment, 100 hours unpaid work and a 10-year sexual harm prevention order.
Their name was placed on the sex offenders’ register for 10 years and they were ordered to pay £425 prosecution costs.
At the DC hearing, the individual admitted that their conviction rendered them unfit to continue to work as a veterinary nurse.
In considering the sanction for the individual, the Committee took into account aggravating factors including that their conviction involved behaviour which increased the risk of harm or injury to human beings, the fact that viewing such images fuelled demand for such exploitative images, and that the conviction related to premeditated sexual misconduct which was sustained or repeated over a period of time.
In mitigation the Committee considered that the individual had taken a number of steps to address the root cause of the offending behaviour, had recognised the seriousness of these offences and had engaged fully with the College throughout the disciplinary process.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee decided that the only appropriate and proportionate response to the respondent’s convictions was a removal order.
"Convictions of this kind are fundamentally incompatible with being a registered veterinary nurse.
"At this point in time, a removal order is the only sanction capable of satisfying the public interest in safeguarding the reputation of the profession of veterinary nursing and ensuring that public confidence in the profession is maintained.”
Just over 17% of the RCVS membership voted in the Council elections - which the RCVS reports is consistent with previous turn-outs.
New faces on the RCVS Council include Richard Stephenson, Charles Gruchy and Catherine Goldie. Dr Barry Johnson (first elected to Council in 1985) and Dr Christopher Chesney (first elected in 1996) have been voted on for further terms. Dr Robert Ellis, who has had three previous periods on Council, has been re-elected.
Meanwhile about 9% of registered and listed veterinary nurses cast their vote in the VN Council elections. At 680, the number of votes was up 100 on last year, but the turnout remains disappointing low. Dot Creighton, current Vice-Chairman, will continue on Council for another term, and Katherine Kissick has been newly-elected.
74-year-old Ms Nicholls, who retired over two years ago, faced three charges against her regarding the surgical removal of a microchip from a cat in December 2021, the failure to disclose the procedure to her employer and associated accusations of dishonesty.
At the outset of the hearing Ms Nicholls made an application to adjourn the hearing while undertaking to voluntarily remove herself from the Register, to never seek to reapply to join the Register and to supply a witness statement in respect of a separate RCVS investigation into the conduct of a veterinary surgeon.
Her application was made on the basis of her age, the fact that she had a 40-year unblemished career in veterinary nursing, that she has retired, that she had referred herself to the College and engaged with the investigation process, that she had undertaken the procedure under the direction of a veterinary surgeon, that there was no financial gain and that the alleged misconduct related to a single animal.
The RCVS did not oppose the application.
Dr Kathryn Peaty MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee noted that the respondent has a long and unblemished career, also that she had self-referred and cooperated with the College and was prepared to act as a witness in other proceedings.
"However, it regarded those matters as going to the proper conduct of a professional and not of particular weight in the application.
“Although the Committee noted that the evidence tended to show that the respondent had acted at the direction of a veterinary surgeon, it considered that this did not outweigh the respondent’s own professional obligations in the relevant events.
"Further, this factor did not touch on the dishonesty allegation.
“The Committee did, in the respondent’s favour, place weight on the fact that this had been a singular event of clinical failing during the course of a long career.
"Further, the associated dishonesty the Committee assessed at being at the lower end of the scale, on the face of the College’s evidence.
"It considered that the expectation that veterinary nurses act with honesty in working with others was important, and so the lack of financial benefit did not have a great deal of impact, given the circumstances.\
“However, the Committee noted that the respondent had eventually corrected the understanding of her employer and admitted what she had done.
"Importantly, it was clear that the respondent had admitted her failings to the College in her subsequent dealings with the College.”
She added: “Taking all matters into consideration and in particular the singular nature of the clinical event and dishonesty at the low end of the scale, the Committee placed weight on the fact that removal of the respondent’s registration together with an undertaking to never re-apply exceeded the potential sanction which could be imposed, following any hearing.
"The Committee also brought into the balance the respondent’s own interests, in not continuing to be subject to the proceedings.
"The Committee also noted that the College did not oppose the application.
“The Committee considered that an informed member of the public, if aware of the full facts of the case and the application, would not be alarmed or concerned if the application is granted and public confidence in the profession would not be undermined.
"The Committee decided to accede to the application and accept the respondent’s undertakings.”
The RCVS has launched a newsletter for those involved with veterinary nurse education and training.
The title - VN Education - replaces VN Standard, the newsletter from RCVS Awards, the College's awarding body. It focuses on the regulatory aspects of all veterinary nurse education, including both vocational and undergraduate training.
Libby Earle, RCVS Head of Veterinary Nursing said: "The new title marks a change in focus, as we wind down the RCVS awarding body and withdraw from awarding vocational qualifications.
"Our core focus is now the quality assurance of all those qualifications leading to registration with the RCVS, and VN Education aims to keep people up to date on regulatory and quality assurance issues."
VN Education will be published three times a year to those involved in veterinary nurse education, and can also be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk/publications. The first issue will be distributed towards the end of January.
The two candidates were VN Council Vice-Chair Liz Cox and newcomer Jane Davidson.
Both Liz and Jane will start their three-year terms on VN Council at Royal College Day on Friday 12 July 2019.
Racheal Marshall, Chair of VN Council, said: "First, I would welcome our new VN Council member Jane Davidson who is well-known to many in the profession as @JaneRVN, a prolific tweeter on all things #planetrvn and a powerful advocate for the veterinary nursing profession through her work with the media, including her regular Vet Times blog. I also wish to congratulate Liz who I am sure will continue to be a great asset to VN Council for a further three years.
"However, it is disappointing that there were not enough candidates standing for us to hold an election this year and give the profession the opportunity to exercise their democratic right and decide who they wish to elect. We will be taking stock of the situation over the next few months and considering how we can do more to promote the activities and decisions of VN Council and its members in the hope that, next year, we will see an increase in the numbers standing as candidates."