The RCVS is conducting a survey of veterinary nurses, to complement the regular surveys of veterinary surgeons it carries out. You can take part by clicking the link at the foot of this article.

The purpose of the survey is to take a snapshot of the veterinary nursing profession in 2008, and anticipate future trends and changes.

"We hope to find out more about veterinary nurses' employment type and experiences, working patterns and professional development," according to Andrea Jeffery, Chairman of the Veterinary Nurses Council. "We will also be asking about nurses' aspirations for the short- and long-term and their current views on the profession."

The survey results will help to show how the provision of veterinary services might be affected by various factors, including numbers of student veterinary nurses, career breaks, part-time working, and nurses choosing to work outside the profession.

It will help the College to understand the changing role of veterinary nurses within the veterinary team, the impact of the non-statutory Register of Veterinary Nurses and to determine future training needs. It will also inform ongoing discussions about new veterinary legislation.

The survey is being carried out by the Institute for Employment Studies (IES), an independent, not-for-profit research organisation.

All veterinary nurses will receive a hard copy of the survey towards the end of January. It is also possible to complete it online at http://www.employmentresearch.co.uk/rcvs_vns.htm

The RCVS Veterinary Nurses Disciplinary Committee has ordered that Karen Tracey Hancock be removed from the Register after finding that she had been dishonest about an injury she claimed to have sustained while working in practice in August 2015.

The inquiry in regard to Karen Tracey Hancock took place in her absence in January, after she indicated that she was content not to appear or to be represented. 

The charges against Mrs Hancock related to an injury she falsely claimed she sustained to her knee while moving a euthanased dog in August 2015 that was then exacerbated while moving another dog a couple of weeks later.

The charges also stated that she made entries in the practice’s accident book also stating that she had injured her knee at work and then aggravated it later.

The charges also stated that, in County Court civil proceedings against the practice in relation to the alleged injuries, she falsely:

• issued a claim notification form dated 22 January 2016 stating that she had sustained a knee injury caused by her work at the practice in August 2015;
• signed a statement dated 30 June 2017 stating that she had sustained a knee injury at work on 13 August 2015 which had then been aggravated at work on the 29 August 2015;
• issued Particulars of Claim dated 13 July 2018 stating that she had sustained a knee injury caused by her work at the practice on 13 August 2015.

The Committee noted that the County Court claim made by Mrs Hancock was listed for a trial and concluded with a consent order dated 21 June 2019 which stated that the claim was dismissed.

It also considered evidence from eyewitnesses regarding the two alleged events that led to and exacerbated her knee injury in August 2015. In doing so the Committee found that, though Mrs Hancock did have an injury to her right knee, this was due to a horse-riding incident a number of years earlier and that her account of the incidents on 13 and 29 August, and therefore her claims to have been caused injury by them, were false and that her conduct had been dishonest.

The Committee therefore found all charges against Mrs Hancock proven.

The Committee then considered whether the proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct. In doing so it considered submissions made by Counsel for the RCVS that there were a number of aggravating factors in the case of Mrs Hancock’s conduct including that the misconduct was sustained over a long period of time, was premeditated and involved lying for financial gain.

In commenting on whether the conduct was serious professional misconduct Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee found all of the aggravating factors set out… in this case applied to its decision on whether or not the conduct amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

"Such conduct would bring the profession of veterinary nurses into disrepute and would undermine public confidence in the profession because the dishonesty was directly concerned with the respondent’s work as a veterinary nurse in the veterinary practice.

"The Committee concluded that the dishonest behaviour was serious misconduct, particularly so because it took place at the respondent’s workplace. It considered that honesty and trust between veterinary nurses and their employers is essential to the profession and that such conduct as set out in the charges would be considered deplorable by other members of the profession."

The Committee was therefore satisfied that all four charges individually and cumulatively amounted to serious professional misconduct.

Committee members then considered the appropriate sanction for Mrs Hancock, taking into account the aggravating factors, including a lack of insight in that, in correspondence before the hearing, she continued to deny the charges. In mitigation it noted that there had been a significant lapse of time and that she had a long and hitherto unblemished career.

On balance it decided that removal from the Register was the appropriate and proportionate sanction and requested Mrs Hancock be removed from the Register, particularly as dishonesty is considered ‘in the top spectrum of gravity’ for misconduct.

Judith Way added: “The Committee acknowledged that the respondent was physically unwell with her knee between 2015 and 2019. However there was no evidence that her health had caused her to commit the misconduct. It noted the representations that the respondent made regarding the need to support herself financially but the Committee determined that the public interest outweighed the respondent’s own interests in this case because the proven dishonesty in the circumstances in which it took place was fundamentally incompatible with continued professional registration.

“In the Committee’s judgment without any evidence of remorse or insight by the respondent a suspension order could not meet the public interest in this case. It therefore concluded that removal of the Respondent’s name from the register was the proportionate and appropriate sanction in this case.”

The RCVS Council and Veterinary Nurses Council elections are now underway for 2013, and ballot papers and candidates details have been posted to all veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses eligible to vote.

Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar, said: "At a time when the College is experiencing a period of significant change, it's more important than ever that the Councils have the right personnel to help steer us along the path to becoming a first-rate regulator. The annual Councils elections represent a key opportunity for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses to ensure this happens."

This year, 13 candidates, five of whom are current Council members, will contest the six available seats on RCVS Council, and four candidates are contesting the two available places on VN Council, including one existing member. The candidates are as follows:

RCVS Council

• Niall Connell
• Jerry Davies*
• Bertie Ellis
• Lewis Grant
• Chris Gray*
• Peter Jinman*
• Tom Lonsdale
• Peter Robinson
• Kit Sturgess
• Paul Torgerson
• Chris Tufnell*
• Bradley Viner*
• Tom Witte

VN Council

• Sue Badger
• Andrea Jeffery*
• Amy Robinson
• Helen Tottey

*denotes existing Council member

For the first time this year, the College is organising an online hustings for RCVS Council candidates to allow veterinary surgeon voters to put their questions to them directly. This will be run as a free, live webinar by 'The Webinar Vet' and will take place on Tuesday, 19 March at 7pm. Questions need to have been submitted in advance as there are too many candidates to hold a debate, but veterinary surgeons can still register to listen to the hustings at www.thewebinarvet.com/rcvs. The hustings will also be recorded and available to listen again via the same web address until the voting deadline.

Votes in both elections may be cast online, by text message or by post, and must be received by 5pm on Friday, 26 April 2013. Details of how to vote are printed on the ballot papers and candidate information is also available on the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil13 and www.rcvs.org.uk/vncouncil13.

Anyone in need of a replacement ballot paper for RCVS Council should contact Ian Holloway (i.holloway@rcvs.org.uk / 020 7202 0727), or for VN Council, contact Annette Amato (a.amato@rcvs.org.uk / 020 7202 0713).

To ensure independence, the elections are being administered by Electoral Reform Services.

Northamptonshire-based Joanna Wicksteed has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after being convicted of theft and fraud, and found to be dishonest and misleading in not declaring a police caution and an adult restorative disposal to the College.

Ms Wicksteed faced five charges.

The first charge concerned her conviction in May 2021, following a jury trial at Oxford Crown Court, for one count of theft and two counts of fraud for which she was sentenced to a two-year community order, including 150 hours of unpaid work, and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £2,800, £177.07 to Barclays Bank and £85 as a victims’ surcharge.

She admitted this charge at the outset of the RCVS Disciplinary Committee hearing.

The second charge concerned the allegation that, in October 2015, she was made subject to an ‘adult restorative disposal’ (‘ARD’) following thefts from Tesco Extra Stores.

This charge was found proven after Ms Wicksteed admitted in her evidence to the Committee that she had signed the ARD.

The third charge concerned the allegation that, in January 2018, she stole from a Debenhams department store and, in March that year, was given a formal police caution.

This charge was found proven by the Committee.

The fourth charge was that, in her annual renewal declarations made each year with the RCVS from 2016 through 2021, she had failed to declare the ARD and the caution.

However, under the Code of Professional Conduct, veterinary surgeons are not required to declare ARDs as they are not convictions, cautions or adverse findings.

Ms Wicksteed was therefore cleared of failing to declare her ARD.

Nevertheless, the Committee found that she had failed to declare her police caution in her annual renewal declarations.

The fifth charge was that in failing to make declarations upon renewing her registration, she was dishonest, misleading and had failed to take adequate steps to inform the College of the caution and the ARD.

The Committee found this charge proven in respect of the caution only and not the ARD.

The Committee then considered whether the first charge, which Ms Wicksteed admitted, rendered her unfit to practise, and whether the remaining charges that were found proven amounted to serious professional misconduct.

Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee noted that the conviction concerned three elements of dishonesty: theft and two counts of fraud.

"It involved stealing from a junior colleague at work, and the fraudulent activity – the use of the colleague’s card - was carefully planned in that, when it was used, it was in respect of items which did not cumulatively cost in excess of £30 and therefore did not require knowledge of the card holder’s PIN.

"It was used twice in the Tesco Store. Between those times, Ms Wicksteed changed her appearance by taking off her coat and waited some 20 minutes.”

She added: “The Committee accepted the College’s argument that members of the public would find it abhorrent for a member of the profession to have acted in this way – stealing from a junior colleague a card held under a Power of Attorney for her brother, and spending money using that card, deliberately keeping each transaction under the contactless limit to try to conceal the conduct.

"Honesty and integrity is one of the five key principles which must be maintained by members of the profession.”

The Committee found that this charge alone rendered Ms Wicksteed unfit to practise veterinary surgery.

The Committee also found that the proven elements of the remaining charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, both individually and cumulatively.

The Committee then considered the sanction for Ms Wicksteed.

In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee considered that there was actual harm to a vulnerable person in the case of the conviction for theft and fraud, the misconduct and dishonesty it entailed was repeated, there were elements of premeditation in the conduct, there was inadequate insight shown into her behaviour, and there was wilful disregard of the College and its processes.

In terms of mitigation, the Committee considered supportive statements and character references from professional colleagues and clients and accepted that there was no actual or potential harm to animals, that Ms Wicksteed had a hitherto unblemished career as demonstrated by the references, and that there had been a significant lapse of time since some of the elements of the charges, albeit she had not declared them.

The Committee also accepted that Ms Wicksteed had suffered from ill-health, although had not seen evidence that directly connected her health with the dishonest behaviour.

Taking into account all the factors, the Committee decided that removal from the Register was the appropriate and proportionate sanction, referencing Ms Wicksteed’s breaches in relation to: serious departure from and reckless disregard for the professional behaviours set out in the Code of Professional Conduct; causing serious harm to the public and breach of trust; persistent and concealed dishonesty; and persistent lack of insight into the seriousness of her  conduct.

www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

The RCVS Practice Standards Group (PSG) has published the results of its five-year review of the Practice Standards Scheme (PSS), with major changes surrounding the role of nurses, clinical governance and staff health and wellbeing.  

From now on, accredited General Practices will need to employ at least one Registered Veterinary Nurse (RVN), whilst at Veterinary Hospitals all patients should now have a nursing plan in place, and an RVN will need to be on duty at all times. 

Other changes to the PSS requirements include:

• General Practices will need to demonstrate the use of clinical audit, significant event audits and the development of guidelines and protocols around clinical governance. 
• At all accreditation levels there are new requirements on the provision of infection control, including risk-based deep cleaning and the minimisation of cross-infection.
• Animal owners will have to provide signed consent to demonstrate they understand the level of overnight care that will be provided for their animals as in-patients. Core Standards practices will need to have provisions to ensure the welfare of patients if left unattended overnight, whilst Veterinary Hospitals, now need protocols and checklists for handovers between day and night teams.
• General Practices will now need to have a computerised Practice Management System, with records being accessible from and transferable between all branches. They will need to provide written discharge instructions and show regular recording of bodyweight and Body Condition Score.
• There are several changes to the requirements for surgical facilities and protocols, including the need to avoid any outdoor clothing or footwear in the operating theatre for practices accredited at General Practice level. There are further requirements for the investigation of surgical site infections, including the use of bacteriology for General Practice and Veterinary Hospital accredited practices. Surgical lighting is required for Core Standards practices, and must be directable for General Practice level.

The full list of changes to the Practice Standards Scheme, together with the new module and award documents, can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/PSSreview.

David Ashcroft leads the team of PSS Assessors responsible for undertaking practice visits and assessing if they meet the required standards. He said: “The changes will come into force later in the year, at the same time as we are planning to return to in-person assessments, and so timings will be subject to government guidance on coronavirus and the easing of lockdown restrictions.

“As the PSS returns to in-person assessments, practices will have the usual three-month period between booking the assessment and the assessment taking place with which to familiarise themselves with the changes and the modules documents relevant to their accreditation.

“If anyone has any questions about the changes then please make sure to contact the Practice Standards Team on pss@rcvs.org.uk and we will be happy to help in any way we can.”

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has restored Portsmouth-based Simon Wood MRCVS to the Register. 

Mr Wood was removed from the Register in 2018 after being convicted of posessing indecent images of children and made subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for five years.

Mr Wood first applied to rejoin the Register in 2020 but his application was rejected. 

At the outset of his second application last month, Mr Wood’s counsel argued that he is professionally competent to be restored, that he had strong mitigation for his offending, that he had consistently and repeatedly expressed and demonstrated profound remorse, that he posed a low risk of re-offending, that he had proactively engaged with the Probation Service and voluntary counselling to gain further insight into his offending, and that he had completed his community sentence and was no longer subject to any of the court orders arising from his conviction.

The Committee then weighed up whether Mr Wood had accepted its original findings in 2018, the seriousness of the offences, whether he demonstrated insight, protection of the public and the public interest, the future welfare of animals should he be restored to the Register, the length of time off the Register, Mr Wood's conduct since he was removed and evidence that he had kept up-to-date with veterinary knowledge, skills and practice.

Dr Kathryn Peaty MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee is satisfied that Mr Wood has done everything required of him in order to be able to satisfy the Committee that he is fit to be restored to the Register.

“At the last application in June 2020, he was unsuccessful largely because of the outstanding ancillary Court Orders that did not conclude until early 2023. Those Orders have now concluded

“He has shown significant insight into his offending behaviour. He has been proactive in his rehabilitation and taken significant steps to ensure there would be no repetition.

“He has a small, but strong, network of people around him who appear to genuinely care about him and support him. He has worked hard at maintaining his skills and knowledge, in so far as he has been able to in light of not being able to practise as a veterinary surgeon.

“He is thoughtful and realistic about his prospects going forward. His responses to questions about addiction were appropriate and persuasive. He has expressed genuine remorse and there is, in the Committee’s view, a public interest in allowing him to be restored to the Register.”

www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has refused Warwick Seymour-Hamilton's eighth application to be restored to the Register since he was struck off 26 years ago.

Mr Seymour-Hamilton was originally removed from the Register following an inspection of his Kent practice in 1993 which found that his operating theatre “showed a total disregard of basic hygiene and care for animals and was such as to bring the profession into disrepute”.

Since being removed from the Register, Mr Seymour-Hamilton has made applications for restoration in 1995, 2010, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019. Each was rejected.

In his latest application, Mr Seymour-Hamilton said that he did not want to re-join the Register in order to practise but to facilitate his research in the area of herbal medicine.

The Committee found that while Mr Seymour-Hamilton had accepted some of the findings of the original case, he disagreed with important facts, such as whether or not his surgery was open at the time of the inspection, and showed ‘minimal insight’ into the seriousness of the findings.

The Committee also voiced concerns over public protection and animal welfare should he be restored, saying that he had demonstrated little or no understanding of the purpose of regulation. The Committee also noted that he had, by his own admission, spayed two cats at a practice in Calais in recent years despite his long absence from the Register and unregistered status as a veterinary surgeon in the UK or France.

In considering his conduct since leaving the Register, the Committee found that Mr Seymour-Hamilton had admitted to a number of instances of conduct which it found ‘reprehensible’. This included carrying out spays; not self-isolating after testing positively for coronavirus and, in fact, travelling through France and Spain in breach of the lockdown put in place due to the pandemic; deliberately trying to re-infect himself with coronavirus and then visiting a vulnerable person without maintaining social distancing; treating his own animals with untested herbal remedies; and using his own remedies to treat people, which, in one case, included a nine-year-old boy in Greece.

In summing up Judith Way, who was chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee has concluded that he has not satisfied it that he is fit to be restored to the Register. He has exhibited a disregard for regulation and compliance with the law. He lacks an understanding as to why he has not been restored in the past. He has not set about addressing any of his shortcomings. He relies wholeheartedly on his research, yet he does not support that research with any real peer-reviewed publications and he fails to acknowledge the consequences of being out-of-practice for so long. He has misplaced confidence in his own abilities and does not recognise that his approach and/or actions can represent a danger to animals and to the public. The Committee has therefore reached the conclusion that the applicant is not a fit person to be restored to the Register.”

The full findings of the restoration hearing for Mr Seymour-Hamilton can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

Lincolnshire-based veterinary nurse Karen Alcock has been deemed fit to practise after being convicted of being in charge of a dangerously out of control dog, resulting in the death of her three-month-old daughter, Kyra.

Ms Alcock was convicted on 23 December 2022 at the Lincoln Crown Court, following a guilty plea of being the owner/person in charge of a dog dangerously out of control causing injury resulting in death.

The court heard that in March 2022, Ms Alcock and her partner had taken their dogs to Ostler Plantation at around 11pm to pull a racing sledge.

Kyra was in her pram outside the van when one of the dogs named Blizzard escaped and mauled her. 

Kyra was pronounced dead at the scene.

Ms Alcock was sentenced to eight months imprisonment, suspended for two years, and ordered to undertake 80 hours of unpaid work.

During the sentencing of Ms Alcock, the Crown Court judge observed that on 7 December 2021, Ms Alcock gave birth to a very much wanted and loved baby.

The judge noted that both Ms Alcock and her partner were experienced dog handlers and was satisfied that there was a tragic set of circumstances.

The judge went on to note that Ms Alcock and her partner were both used to dogs and that the dog in question, Blizzard, was not a dog who had previously caused any concern.

There was nothing to trigger her attack on the baby; but on this occasion she was dangerously out of control as demonstrated by the attack.

Having taken all evidence into account, as well as advice from the Legal Assessor who provides guidance on the law to all parties involved during a hearing, the Veterinary Nurse Disciplinary Committee did not consider the conviction rendered Ms Alcock unfit to practise.

She was not caring for Blizzard in a professional capacity and the incident occurred outside of her practise as a veterinary nurse.

https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings

Hot on the heels of yesterday’s announcement that the RCVS has completed the sale of its offices in Westminster, the College has now announced plans to move its headquarters offshore.

In a statement issued this morning, the College explained that a review carried out after tea yesterday afternoon concluded that in the post pandemic world, most of its staff will continue to work from home. The need for office space is therefore limited to three meeting rooms and a kitchenette. 

VetNurse.co.uk understands that as a result, negotiations are already well advanced between the College and the owners of Ugland House in the Cayman Islands (pictured right) over the sale of one floor of the building, which is also home to 20,000 companies based on the tax-efficient island.

RCVS spokesperson Flora Olip said: “This move makes all sorts of sense. It represents a considerable cost-saving over our London premises and it puts the College at the very centre of the global veterinary community.

RCVS CEO Lizzie Lockett was last seen browsing the beachwear section of www.harrods.com. 

Bedfordshire-based Siew Loong Ng has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after being found guilty of clinical failures, poor record keeping and dishonesty.

Mr Ng faced seven charges:

• In July and August 2020, he failed to clean the wound of a collie bitch he was treating prior to surgery (not proved), failed to provide adequate analgesia (not proved) and failed to keep adequate records in relation to the dog’s examination, surgery and other procedures (found partly proved).
• Between February 2020 and May 2021, he failed to record what surgery was performed and/or the technique used in cherry eye surgery performed on one or more of six puppies (not proved)
  • he performed cherry eye surgery by amputating the Harderian gland without sufficient evidence of it being cherry eye and without attempting other forms of treatment first (admitted)
  • he failed to keep records of which puppies had been seen and received treatment (not proved)
  • he failed to record details relating to caesarean sections performed on 11 dogs (not proved)
  • he failed to record which puppy or puppies were examined and/or to make adequately detailed records for an animal which presented with cherry eye (not proved)
  • he failed to make adequate records relating to a dog or dogs presented in relation to gaining a health passport for Ireland as well as cherry eye and caesarean section (proved)
  • he failed to make adequate records in relation to litters of puppies which had been vaccinated in order to enable a reliable duplicate vaccination certificate to be supplied (proved)
• In or around April 2021, failed to make adequate clinical records in relation to a rabbit he treated (proved)
• In May 2021 he failed to offer a reasonable range of options for diagnosis and/or treatment of a labradoodle (proved), he amended clinical records for the dog at a later date without making it clear the changes were retrospective and, in doing so, was dishonest (proved) and misleading (admitted), and failed to maintain adequate clinical records for the dog (admitted)
• In June 2022, he undertook caesarean surgery on a six-year-old dobermann without trained assistance (admitted), without informing the owner with adequate notice he had no trained assistance (proved), and without offering referral to an out-of-hours service (admitted). He also failed to take adequate steps to treat the dog when her condition deteriorated after surgery (admitted), and failed to maintain clinical records (admitted)
• Between May 2020 and 30 June 2021, he intubated patients for caesarean section surgery after only sedating them and not under general anaesthesia (admitted), he began the surgery without trained assistance (proved), he failed to make adequate clinical records in respect of surgeries performed on 25 April 2021 (proved), he deleted the clinical records of two patients (admitted) and he failed to make and/or deleted clinical records in relation to five animals he performed caesarean surgery on (admitted)
• His conduct in relation to deleting the two clinical records was dishonest and misleading (admitted).

Mr Ng admitted some aspects of the charges against him, including that he had deleted two patient records and that this was dishonest and misleading.

The Committee then determined the facts of the rest of the charges after hearing evidence from witnesses and Mr Ng himself, as well as expert witnesses.

Having considered all the evidence, it determined which elements of the charges were proved, and which were not.

The Committee then considered whether the admitted and charges found proved amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In doing so it considered that the charges against Mr Ng fell into three broad categories – deficiencies in clinical care, deficiencies in record keeping, and dishonesty.

In respect of all three, it found the admitted and charges found proved amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee found that Mr Ng’s conduct had directly caused harm to animals and also created risk of further harm, and noted that there were three instances of dishonesty.

Paul Morris, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee noted that there were three instances of dishonest behaviour in relation to clinical records.

"The amendment of the clinical record in the labradoodle’s case was particularly serious.

"This alteration was made at a time when the respondent knew that the owner was dissatisfied with the treatment the dog had received and was complaining about the lack of therapeutic intervention.

"The alteration presented a false account of the owner’s attitude towards immediate therapeutic intervention.

"Conduct of this kind was liable to damage trust in the profession.”

In mitigation, the Committee took into account the sense of pressure Mr Ng felt following a financial dispute with his relative in respect of the veterinary practice, his long career as a veterinary surgeon and the high regard with which he was held by those who provided testimonials on his behalf.

The Committee acknowledged Mr Ng’s assertions that he now understood his failings and his expressions of remorse for the harm he had caused and that these indicated the beginnings of insight.

However, in respect of the clinical deficiencies, the Committee found that various aspects of Mr Ng’s approach to treating conditions such as diabetes and cherry eye were inadequate and out-of-date, and that there was little in his continuing professional development (CPD) record or his statements to suggest he had attempted to improve these deficiencies.

Ultimately, the Committee found that Mr Ng’s conduct was so serious that removal from the Register was the most appropriate sanction.

Paul Morris added: “The Committee has concluded that the respondent’s behaviour was fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon.

"In view of the nature and gravity of the Committee’s findings in this case, removal from the Register is necessary to ensure the protection of animals and the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.”

www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

The RCVS has updated its Code of Professional Conduct to require that before euthanasing an otherwise healthy dog, veterinary surgeons must first scan the animal for the presence of a 'rescue backup'.

The updated guidance follows a public campaign known as ‘Tuk’s Law’, which was started after a healthy dog by that name was euthanased despite its microchip being dually registered with a rehoming centre as a 'rescue backup'.

In response, the RCVS and the BVA agreed that more should be done to prevent occasions where a dog might be needlessly put to sleep, but voiced concerns that a legislative approach could undermine a vet’s clinical judgement, unfairly involve veterinary surgeons in ownership disputes or potential criminality, and leave vets unfairly exposed to financial sanctions.

In consultation with Defra, the RCVS and BVA therefore jointly agreed to strengthen the Code of Professional Conduct as follows:

Chapter 8 (para 8.9)

There may be circumstances where a request is made by a client for the destruction of a dog, where in the clinical/professional judgement of the veterinary surgeon destruction of the dog is not necessary, for instance where there are no health or welfare reasons for the dog to be euthanised.

In these circumstances, before carrying out the request for euthanasia the veterinary surgeon should scan the dog for a microchip and check the relevant database if a microchip is found. 

Chapter (paras 29.25 -29.27)

Clients may have a contract with the shelter from which they acquired the dog such that it can be returned to that shelter, and that it may be appropriate to discuss this with them prior to euthanasia. Alternatively, there may be another individual willing to take responsibility for the dog (who may be named on the microchip database), and this may also be discussed with the client.

The updated guidance supports existing best practice in terms of discussing alternatives to euthanasia with clients, and give vets flexibility where, in their professional judgment, scanning is not appropriate; this might be if scanning would itself cause a welfare problem, or where a vulnerable client might be involved.

The RCVS Standards Committee says it recognised the difficulties experienced by veterinary surgeons in dealing with the current microchip database system, but felt that introducing these provisions into the guidance was a more proportionate response than the alternative of legislation with substantial fines. 

BVA Senior Vice President Dr Daniella Dos Santos MRCVS said: “One of the most important jobs as a vet is having those difficult conversations with clients about euthanasia where we talk through all the options that are in the animal’s best interests. But where the vet doesn’t consider that euthanasia is necessary, the new guidance clearly sets out the steps we need to take. We support this constructive approach that addresses the campaigners’ concerns without undermining veterinary judgement.”

The RCVS is seeking candidates to run for election to the RCVS and VN Councils.  

There are six seats on the RCVS Council and two on the VN Council due to be filled in the 2010 election. Candidate nominations must be received by 31 January 2010; voting papers will then be distributed to all veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses eligible to vote, the election held in March and the results announced early in May. Those elected will take their seats at RCVS Day in July to serve four-year terms.  

Jane Hern, RCVS Registrar said: "Like us or loathe us, what the RCVS does impacts directly on the lives of veterinary surgeons and nurses, their clients and patients. Getting regulation right is something that all Members and Listed/Registered VNs have power to influence.  

"We know from the reaction we get when we propose changes or ask for your comments that vets and VNs are not backwards about coming forwards," Jane continued. "There has been a substantial rise in the number of vets voting, since a low point in voter turnout was reached in 2002. So, if you know someone you think is up to the job, why not persuade them to stand?"

All prospective candidates need to provide the signatures and registered/listed addresses of two proposers, and should also submit a short biography, 'manifesto' and photograph for inclusion in the elections booklets. Nobody can nominate more than one candidate, and no current member of the RCVS Council or VN Council may nominate anyone.

Newly elected RCVS Council members should expect to sit on at least one committee which, together with Council attendances, means a time commitment of at least six to eight days a year. Those elected to the VN Council should expect to spend approximately six to eight days attending Council meetings, working parties and subcommittees. Both RCVS Council and VN Council members are permitted to claim certain expenditures arising from Council-related duties and their employers can also claim a standard day-rate for loss of earnings.  

Nomination forms and full details relating to RCVS Council nominations can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil10 or obtained by contacting the Executive Office (020 7222 0761 or executiveoffice@rcvs.org.uk). Nomination forms and details relating to the VN Council will be online shortly at www.rcvs.org.uk/vncouncil10 and can also be requested from Annette Amato (020 7202 0788 or a.amato@rcvs.org.uk).

All nominations must be made in writing on the prescribed form and received by the Registrar on or before the closing date of 31 January 2010.