View all veterinary jobs
The hearing took place in Mr Prichard's absence after he failed to respond to Colleges attempts to contact him, including by email, post, telephone and personal service of documents.
However, in its decision to proceed in Mr Prichard’s absence, the Committee confirmed that it would not hold his non-attendance against him or attach any adverse inference to that fact.
Mr Prichard was charged with taking quantities of the controlled, prescription-only drug Vetergesic from the practice’s stock other than for legitimate veterinary use.
He was further charged that he took Vetergesic from the practice by drawing it into a syringe for the purposes of self administration, and that in doing so, his conduct was dishonest.
In another set of charges, it was alleged that on five separate occasions, Mr Prichard had attended the practice to work as a veterinary surgeon whilst unfit to do so.
The final charge related to Mr Prichard’s failure to respond adequately or at all to all reasonable requests from the RCVS for his response to concerns raised about his conduct.
At the beginning of the hearing Nicole Curtis, acting on behalf of the College, read the written evidence from 11 separate witnesses outlining the facts related to the charges against Mr Prichard, including the record of an investigative meeting held by the practice in which he admitted his theft and use of the controlled drug and following which, he was dismissed from his employment.
The Committee found all the charges proven and then considered whether they amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In terms of aggravating factors the Committee found that there was a risk of injury, recklessness, premeditated and sustained misconduct, and that there was an abuse of his professional position in accessing prescription-only controlled drugs for reasons other than legitimate veterinary use.
In mitigation, the Committee considered that he had made admissions as part of the practice’s internal disciplinary investigation.
Overall, the Committee found he had breached aspects of the Code of Professional Conduct related to honesty and integrity, making animal health and welfare his first priority, appropriate use of veterinary medicines, taking steps to address physical and mental health conditions that could affect fitness to practise, responding to reasonable requests from the RCVS, and bringing the profession into disrepute.
Therefore, the Committee found him guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to all of the charges charges.
The Committee felt that, considering the seriousness of the misconduct, removal from the Register was the most appropriate decision.
Austin Kirwan, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “This is a case involving serious dishonesty, sustained over a period of time, and conduct potentially detrimental to animal welfare, as well as wilful disregard of professional regulations.
“Regrettably, Mr Prichard’s failure to engage with the College and with the regulatory process limited the options open to the Committee.
"Notwithstanding this, Mr Prichard’s disgraceful conduct is so serious that removal from the Register is the only means of protecting animals and the wider public interest which includes the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and the upholding of standards.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Sarah is a Professor of Veterinary Surgery at the University of Nottingham’s School of Veterinary Medicine & Science, and leads the Nottingham Equine Colic Project, which works with organisations such as the British Horse Society to raise awareness of the condition.
Sarah's talk, 'Generating an evidence-based educational campaign on colic', will discuss new evidence from the project, and how it led to the REACT colic campaign. She will also be sharing experiences of how the campaign has worked and asking whether we can change people's attitudes and behaviours.
The evening starts at 6.15pm with food and refreshments with Sarah's talk starting at 7pm, after which there will be an update on the College’s latest projects and initiatives. That'll be followed by a question and answer session with senior officers and staff from the RCVS - including RCVS President Dr Niall Connell, and Chair of RCVS Veterinary Nurses (VN) Council Racheal Marshall.
Dr Connell said: "Thank you to Professor Freeman for agreeing to speak about the colic project which, through its Colic Awareness Week, is helping to raise knowledge of the early signs of colic amongst horse owners, allowing them to get their horses treated in good time and saving their lives.
"I also look forward to talking to members of the profession about some of the issues currently on their minds – the evening is very much led by what those who attend want to discuss – from mental health, to our under care review, to the Practice Standards Scheme. Attending the event can also count to up to three hours towards your continuing professional development (CPD) requirement."
The event is open to all members of the practice team including veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses, practice managers and others. The event is free and places can be booked via the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/nottingham.
In the afternoon before the event, between 12 noon and 5pm, the College will also be holding a series of free 45-minute Practice Standards Scheme (PSS) surgeries with PSS Lead Assessor Pam Mosedale.
The surgeries are open to both RCVS-accredited practices and those considering joining the Scheme and allows delegates to discuss the assessment process, how to apply for awards, how to meet particular requirements and any other questions they may have about the PSS.
Places at the surgeries are limited and will be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis. They can be booked at: www.rcvs.org.uk/PSSsurgeries
The review, announced earlier this year, was recommended to RCVS Council by its Standards Committee following its exploration of the implications of new technologies for both animal health and welfare and veterinary regulation.
The main areas under consideration include the provision of 24-hour emergency cover and the interpretation and application of an animal being under the care of a veterinary surgeon.
The initial stages of this review had been drafted for Standards Committee to consider at its meeting on 9 September, where the outline timetable was also discussed.
Standards Committee Chair Melissa Donald, said: "This is set to become one of our most fundamental reviews of RCVS guidance in recent years.
"Considering the complexity of the issues in question, and their importance to animal owners and the professions alike, it is vital that we allow ourselves enough time to ensure this review is as thorough and comprehensive as possible.
"We have a clear responsibility to seek, understand and, where we can, accommodate the opinions and experiences of as many different people from within and around the professions and the public as possible. I would urge my fellow vets and vet nurses to please find some time to consider these issues very carefully over the coming weeks and months, and to send us their views."
The review will comprise several stages and is expected to take around 12 months to complete. The outline timetable, which may be subject to change, is as follows:
October 2019 – January 2020: six-week Call for Evidence, followed by independent qualitative analysis of all evidence received
February – March: Select Committee-style meetings and independent qualitative analysis of additional evidence gathered [NB this stage is subject to Standards Committee requirements, depending on the evidence gathered.]
April – June: Consider all evidence and draft any new policy
July – August: six-week public consultation on draft policy
September – October: independent review of consultation responses, and production of any proposals for change
November 2020: Finalise any proposals for change and publish any new guidance
To support and promote the various stages of the review the College is also planning a programme of stakeholder engagement, and will also provide regular updates on progress to both Council and the wider profession.
Members of the professions and the public will be able to follow the progress of the review via the RCVS website at: www.rcvs.org.uk/undercare
Laura Padron Vega was struck off in December 2018 after dishonestly backdating two statutory Certificates of Competence submitted to the Food Standards Agency under the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing Regulations 2015.
She was also found to have failed in her duties as an OV because she was unprepared for, and unaware of, the new regulations and did not take adequate steps to ensure that the two people for whom she had given veterinary certification were licensed to perform slaughter in accordance with the regulations.
At the outset of the restoration hearing, Ms Padron Vega admitted her guilt and made representations that she appreciated the seriousness of her actions and that there was no chance of her repeating them. She also produced a number of testimonials, including some from former veterinary colleagues, in addition to evidence that she had endeavoured to keep up-to-date with her continuing professional development while off the Register although this had been difficult due to her financial circumstances.
In considering her application for restoration, the Committee found that Ms Padron Vega had accepted the reasons for her removal from the Register and the seriousness of the findings. It found that she was unlikely to repeat the behaviour and that her conduct had been entirely acceptable since she was removed from the Register. It also considered her financial and personal circumstances, noting the difficulty she had in securing well-paid, full-time employment since her removal from the Register, and the impact that this had on her being able to keep up-to-date with her continuing professional development.
However, the Committee expressed concerns over her efforts to keep up-to-date with the knowledge and skills she would need to return to practice and said she demonstrated “no real appreciation of what she needed to put in place to demonstrate that she can return to work safely”.
In particular it found that the CPD she had undertaken was unstructured and insufficient and that therefore she had not done enough at the present time to demonstrate that she was fit to be restored to the Register, especially as she signalled that, if restored, she hoped to work in small animal practice, an area that she had not worked in for some time.
Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “While the Committee did not consider that the applicant was in a position to return to practice at this point, it did consider that if the applicant applies herself to a properly structured and focused Return to Practice Plan and is able to produce evidence of how she has fulfilled the requirements of that plan, then her application could prove successful within a short time.
"The outcome of the plan for a return to practice will need to ensure the continued protection of the welfare of animals as well as the interests of clients whose animals she might be called upon to treat and, most importantly, the public interest which is founded on a belief that the veterinary certification processes are beyond question or doubt."
In order to allow Ms Padron Vega sufficient time to develop this plan, the Committee adjourned the restoration hearing for seven months (until July 2021).
Ms Jones added: “This adjournment will afford [Ms Padron Vega] an early opportunity to reflect on the concerns of the Committee… and to return with a properly supported programme for the future which will show her understanding of the problems that are likely to face her on her return to practice and her proposals to meet those inevitable difficulties.”
At the hearing, Dr Crawford made no admissions to the charges against him which involved allegations of: failing to provide adequate and appropriate care; failing to provide adequate clinical histories to another practice in respect of several animals; failing to treat fellow veterinary professionals and other members of staff from another practice with courtesy and respect; failing to maintain adequate clinical records; failing to have in place Professional Indemnity Insurance or equivalent arrangements; and, failing to respond to reasonable requests from the RCVS.
Dr Crawford’s representative drew the Committee’s attention to the fact that Mr Crawford was 71 years old, had no previous disciplinary findings against him and had now ceased practising, including closing his practice premises and notifying his previous clients of the closure.
His representative confirmed that Mr Crawford was fully aware that if his application was accepted, he would no longer be able to practise as a veterinary surgeon or identify as a veterinary surgeon. The Committee also noted that the RCVS had consulted with the complainants who were satisfied with the case being disposed of in this way.
Dr Martin Whiting, chairing the Committee, and speaking on its behalf, said: “Having weighed the public interest in a hearing with the registrant’s interests, the Committee determined that this is not a case in which the public interest required there to be a full hearing. Protection of the welfare of animals would also not be further served by a full hearing. The Committee decided to accede to the respondent’s application.
"The Committee considered that the adjournment on undertakings served to protect the public interest, confidence in the profession and the welfare of animals.
"The Committee carefully considered the detail of the undertakings. It decided, after due consideration that it would accept the respondent’s undertakings in the terms offered and signed."
The RCVS has announced plans to celebrate veterinary nursing's Golden Jubilee in style this year.
The first nurses to qualify, 50 years ago in 1961, were known as registered animal nursing auxilliaries (RANA). The term 'veterinary nurse' was not used until over twenty years later, in 1984.
Today, veterinary nursing is thriving. The RCVS List/Register of Veterinary Nurses includes 1,715 listed veterinary nurses, and 8,101 who have gone a step further to become registered veterinary nurses (RVNs).
Liz Branscombe, RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council Chairman said: "Still often referred to as a 'young profession' - perhaps because the average age of VNs is a youthful 31- veterinary nursing has reached its half century and has achieved a great deal in a relatively short period. It is moving ever closer to recognition as a fully fledged profession.
"We should be proud of what we have achieved, but it's no time to be complacent: we plan not only to celebrate our history but also to consider what the next decades will hold for veterinary nursing."
The RCVS's plans for the year include, among other things:
The RCVS invites any of the pioneering veterinary nurses who received their qualification in the 1960s to get in touch, so they can play a part in the celebrations. Contact Lizzie Lockett, Head of Communications, on l.lockett@rcvs.org.uk.
The RCVS said: "We understand that there are very strong opinions about the ban, and we respect the rights of individuals to make their own decisions.
"However, expressing these opinions can never justify or include the harassment and abuse of individual vets, vet nurses or their practice colleagues."
The BVA added: “The Government’s XL Bully ban is also placing additional pressure on veterinary teams who are doing their best in very challenging circumstances to help keep responsible XL Bully owners with their pets wherever possible.
"Their commitment extends to supporting clients with any decision-making around euthanasia in individual cases.
"It’s simply unacceptable for these professionals to face additional challenges through abuse, intimidation or threats.
"Such actions can have a hugely negative impact on individual vets and the wider team."
Resources:
Photo: Dlexus
The DC heard that Mr Hutton had attended to a horse called Angel at a livery yard in Sheffield.
As he examined the horse, it kicked Mr Hutton in the leg, whereupon he kicked it back in the abdomen.
Mr Hutton admitted the facts of the allegation against him.
The Committee noted that there was a dispute between the parties about the exact manner in which the kick had been administered and whether the conduct amounted to disgraceful conduct.
Both the College and the defence obtained the opinion of experts, who were not in agreement as to whether the conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee heard evidence from Angel’s owner, Ms A, who was present when Mr Hutton kicked Angel and from Ms B, Mr Hutton’s life partner, who was also present.
In his witness statement, Mr Hutton said that his kick “was an instinctive reaction to what had happened and an instinctive reprimand for what I felt in the aftermath of the kick from her was malicious behaviour”.
Mr Hutton also stated that the reprimand was an appropriate response which a horse would understand, in order to modify its future behaviour.
In the hearing, Mr Hutton apologised for the incident with Angel. He said it had happened in the heat of the moment. He wished that he had apologised straight away.
In his expert evidence before the Committee, Mr T Gliddon MRCVS, called by the College, agreed that attitudes to physical reprimands had changed over time.
In his expert report, he stated that a reprimand administered by a veterinary surgeon that may have been considered acceptable by a significant body of the veterinary profession some decades ago would no longer be regarded as such now, in his opinion.
In re-examination, he stated that in his opinion, there was not a reasonable body of veterinary opinion which would consider kicking a horse as an acceptable form of negative reinforcement of behaviour.
In his expert evidence to the Committee, Dr H Tremaine FRCVS, called by Mr Hutton, stated that in the case of the minority of veterinary surgeons who used physical reprimands as a means of modifying behaviour, he was not aware that such reprimands would include the use of a kick.
The Committee concluded from the evidence that, following the kick from Angel, Mr Hutton moved away from the horse, so that he was no longer in immediate danger and that his kick in response had come after a gap in time, albeit brief.
Ms Greaney, Counsel for the College, provided written submissions on serious professional misconduct, submitting that principles 1.1 (Veterinary surgeons must make animal health and welfare their first consideration when attending to animals) and 6.5 (Veterinary surgeons 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) of the Code of Professional Conduct had been breached.
It was submitted that, on the basis that there had been a deliberate decision by Mr Hutton to kick Angel in the abdomen, he had time to consider his actions.
The College submitted that deliberately kicking Angel, either as punishment or by way of teaching or training a horse, fell far below the standard expected of veterinary surgeons.
The Committee found Mr Hutton’s state of mind when kicking Angel was not an issue and that Mr Hutton had intentionally kicked the horse.
In reaching its decision in relation to whether Mr Hutton’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct the Committee took into account that:
Mrs Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee determined that taking all circumstances and its findings into account, this conduct was a single, but serious failure on the part of Mr Hutton and found the facts proved amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
“On deciding what, if any, sanction ought to be imposed, the Committee considered the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case, based on findings at the earlier stages of the hearing.
"The Committee found that there had been a risk of physical and/or mental injury to Angel from Mr Hutton’s conduct but accepted that there were a number of mitigating factors.
“It had been found that the incident had occurred over a very brief period and that Mr Hutton had not taken proper time to consider his response to Angel’s unexpected kick.
"This was found to be a single isolated incident and the character evidence indicated that otherwise, Mr Hutton was a competent and well-regarded veterinary surgeon.
"Mr Hutton admitted the kick early on in the proceedings and had issued an early apology, albeit seeking initially to raise some justification for his actions.
“The Committee was persuaded, in light of Mr Hutton’s admissions, heartfelt apologies, developing insight and the testimonial evidence, that he is very unlikely to repeat his past misconduct.
"However, despite the low risk of repetition, the Committee considered that the nature of the kick, delivered without the consent of the owner, could undermine public confidence in the profession.
"Thus, the Committee considered that it was proportionate to issue a reprimand together with a warning as to Mr Hutton’s future conduct.
"It has determined that this would be proportionate and sufficient to provide adequate protection for animals and maintain public confidence in the profession.”
The full details of the hearing and the Committee’s decision can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.
The College says it will, however, continue to operate as close to normality as possible, with the main support services for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses such as advice, lifelong learning (including qualifications and the new 1CPD platform), finance and Practice Standards available as usual over the phone, on email or via the website.
The College’s main statutory activities around accreditation, registration and regulation of the professions will also be largely unaffected, with most Committee, Sub-Committee and working group meetings held by telephone or video conference.
Apparently, however, the April meeting of RCVS Council was going to be too big to be held remotely, so it has been cancelled.
The things that were up for discussion, such as the standard of proof and the report of the Legislation Working Party, will be moved to a subsequent meeting. Should there be any urgent business to consider, Council members have been asked to remain available via email on the date originally scheduled.
The College says it will be deciding whether to proceed with forthcoming DC hearings on a case-by-case basis, to balance maintaining the health and welfare of all involved with the College’s responsibility to protect animal health and welfare and public health.
The College is having to postpone or cancel an increasing number of its events; latest updates and advice for the profession is at: www.rcvs.org.uk/coronavirus.
RCVS Chief Executive Lizzie Lockett, pictured right, said: "We have been planning for this eventuality for some time, so whilst Monday’s announcement from UK Government came a little sooner than expected, we are in a strong position to be able to operate as close to normal as possible.
"We have an excellent and highly committed team of staff and Council members at the College, who I know will continue to work hard from kitchen tables, studies and living rooms over the coming days and weeks to serve the veterinary professions and the animal-owning public.
"Whilst we are fortunate that much of our work can be carried out remotely, we fully appreciate that this is not the case for most veterinary professionals who themselves are currently facing many significant challenges in their daily work to care for the nation’s animals whilst also prioritising the health and welfare of their own teams."
The College is urging all veterinary surgeons, nurses and practices to check they have supplied it with their most up-to-date email address via www.rcvs.org.uk/myaccount so it can relay its latest advice as the situation evolves.
Dr Radev faced three charges concerning his treatment of an American Bulldog in 2021.
The first charge, which contained a number of sub-charges, was that he failed to provide appropriate and adequate care to the animal.
The second was that he failed to keep adequate records.
The final charge was that his failure to keep records was misleading and dishonest.
At the outset of the hearing Dr Radev admitted that, having recognised free fluid in the dog’s abdomen, he failed to take adequate and appropriate action and failed to aspirate the dog’s abdomen with regards to the possibility of it having septic peritonitis.
He also admitted writing the clinical notes approximately two months after the event.
After considering and rejecting an application by the RCVS to amend and withdraw elements of the first charge, the Committee then considered each of the remaining sub-charges in turn.
Sub-charge 1(a) was that Dr Radev repeatedly administered meloxicam to the dog when it had recently undergone intestinal surgery and had a recent history of vomiting.
The Committee found that this was not proven.
Dr Radev said it had been administered just once and the Committee was not satisfied so as to be sure that it was repeatedly administered.
Sub-charge 1(b) (i) was that Dr Radev failed to recognise free fluid in the dog’s abdomen as shown on an ultrasound scan.
The Committee found this not proven.
Sub-charge 1(c) (i) was that Dr Radev failed to recognise the possibility of septic peritonitis in the dog.
Sub-charge 1(e) was that Dr Radev failed to provide a full medical history when referring the dog to a different practice.
The Committee found the charge not proven.
Regarding charge 2 (ii), that Dr Radev had failed to include in clinical records a reference to the colonotomy surgery, the Committee found this charge not proven as it had been provided with clinical records disproving this charge.
Finally, regarding both aspects of charge 3, namely that Dr Radev had acted misleadingly and dishonesty, the Committee found this not proven.
The Committee then considered whether the charges that Dr Radev had admitted amounted to gross misconduct in a professional respect.
In all cases it found that, while Dr Radev’s conduct had fallen below what was expected of veterinary professionals, it did not fall so far below as to constitute serious professional misconduct.
Dr Russell, 64, who waived his right to attend the hearing, was convicted in 2023 of three offences: making indecent photographs of a child, possessing 2,280 prohibited images of a child and possessing 109 extreme pornographic images that included moving images that were grossly offensive.
After pleading guilty to making indecent photographs/pseudo-photographs of a child, possessing a prohibited image of a child, and possessing extreme pornographic image/images portraying sexual acts with an animal, Dr Russell was sentenced at Winchester Crown Court to a two-year community order, a 30-day Rehabilitation Activity Requirement, 150 hours of community service and a forfeiture and destruction order of Seagate Drive, Toshiba hard drive and Lenovo tablet.
In addition, he was required to register with the police for 5 years and made subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for five years.
He was also required to pay prosecution costs of £425 and £60 victim surcharge.
Counsel for the College submitted to the Disciplinary Committee that the nature and circumstances of the offences rendered Dr Russell unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
The Committee considered there to be several aggravating factors including, actual (albeit indirect) injury to an animal or child; the risk of harm to an animal or child; sexual misconduct; premeditated conduct; and, that the offences involved vulnerable children and animals.
Neil Slater, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee has reached the conclusion that Dr Russell’s behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon, namely grave offences of a sexual nature.
"Dr Russell’s behaviour was so serious that removal of professional status and the rights and privileges accorded to that status is considered to be the only means of protecting the wider public interest and of maintaining confidence in the profession.
“The Committee has not taken this decision lightly, and, lest it be misinterpreted, it has not taken it in order to satisfy any notional public demand for blame and punishment.
"It has taken the decision because, in its judgment, the reputation of the profession has to be at the forefront of its thinking and ultimately this is more important than the interests of Dr Russell.
"The decision is not simply based on the fact that these offences were of a sexual nature but because they were repeated over a significant period of time and at a time when Dr Russell must have known, on his own plea of guilty, that what he was doing was wrong.
"Further, the Committee can discern no evidence that Dr Russell has insight into the gravity of the offence he has committed.
"The Committee has therefore directed the Registrar to remove his name from the Register forthwith.”
Dr Russell has 28 days from being notified of his removal from the Register to lodge an appeal with Privy Council.
Mr Wood faced three charges, all relating to allegations of misconduct over a laboratory test for an alpaca while he was working at a practice in South Oxfordshire.
The charges alleged that in September 2023, Mr Wood told the alpaca’s owner that it had tested positive for Johne’s disease when in fact, the animal had not been tested.
He then allegedly sent a letter confirming a positive test result for the test that had not taken place, and then created a false test result report in the name of a veterinary surgeon colleague and sent it to another colleague by email.
He later told the alpaca's owner that he had given her the wrong result by mistake and that the test result was actually negative.
Then in October 2023, he emailed the laboratory saying that a member of his practice’s administrative staff had written the false report.
In November he told the managing partner of his then employer on three occasions that he was investigating the false report in order to find out who sent it.
Finally, he sent a misleading and dishonest email to a veterinary surgeon colleague falsely indicating that a member of the practice’s staff had manufactured the false report, when that was not the case.
At the outset of the hearing Mr Wood admitted the facts of all the allegations against him.
Having found the facts proven, the Committee found that the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, something which Mr Wood himself also admitted.
The Committee identified a number of aggravating factors in Mr Woods' conduct, including his lack of honesty, probity and integrity, the fact the conduct was premeditated, that it involved a breach of the client’s trust, the abuse of his professional position, the fact the conduct was sustained and repeated over a period of time, and that his conduct contravened advice given by the RCVS.
The mitigating factors included positive testimonials from professional former colleagues and client farmers, the fact that he had engaged in some remediation in order to avoid repeating the dishonest behaviour, and that he showed significant insight into his misconduct.
Dr Neil Slater MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee recognised that the serious repeated dishonesty, which was to conceal wrongdoing, made the respondent’s misconduct particularly serious.
“It therefore gave consideration as to whether his conduct was fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon and whether removal was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.
“The Committee considered that this was a particularly difficult case to reconcile, as, on the one hand the misconduct was so serious whereas on the other hand, the respondent had demonstrated significant insight; the risk of repetition was low; the evidence of his professional achievements was strong and the testimonials from client farmers and professional colleagues were impressive.”
He added: “The Committee considers that suspension is sufficient in the circumstances of this case to satisfy public confidence in the profession and to uphold proper professional standards of conduct and behaviour.
"The Committee therefore imposes a suspension of 18 months on the respondent.
"In determining this length, the Committee considered that this was the least period necessary in order to meet the significant public interest considerations in this case.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
Mrs Mullen faced four charges against her.
The first was that she failed to provide information to her clients about her practice OOH provision.
She was also charged with discharging a Labrador, called Cleo, that was unfit to be discharged following spay surgery, with an inadequate abdominal dressing and inadequate information given to the dog's owners regarding complications from surgery, the risk of post-operative haemorrhage and arrangements for out-of-hours care, as well as failing to make adequate clinical records.
The third charge alleged that she had failed to obtain informed consent for anaesthesia/ surgery performed on an English Bulldog, called Boycie, from his owners, failed to ensure the dog had adequate monitoring whilst recovering from anaesthesia, failed to offer an adequate range of overnight care for the dog, left the dog alone overnight when it was not in a fit condition to be left, failed to provide information to its owners on post-operative care at home and out-of-hours emergency arrangements, and failed to make adequate clinical records relating to its treatment.
Finally, she was charged with failing to have Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) or equivalent arrangements in place or failing to provide details of it, failing to respond to requests regarding her continuing professional development records and failing to respond adequately to reasonable requests from the College for details and documents regarding her treatment of the two dogs.
Mrs Mullen indicated to the RCVS before the hearing that she would not be engaging with the disciplinary process.
The Disciplinary Committee therefore granted the RCVS permission to proceed in her absence on the basis that Mrs Mullen had made it clear that her absence from proceedings was deliberate and voluntary, that there was no indication she would attend any future hearing if it was adjourned and that the charges were of sufficient seriousness that it was in the interests of animal welfare to proceed with them.
The Committee heard evidence from a number of witnesses including the animals’ owners, an expert veterinary witness and College staff.
In the evidence, the Committee heard that the Labrador had died while undergoing treatment at another veterinary practice from complications arising from blood loss following Mrs Mullen’s surgery.
The Committee also heard that the English Bulldog had suffered brain damage and had lost its sight due to post-operative hypoxia, although it had otherwise recovered.
Having heard all the evidence, the Committee found all the charges against Mrs Mullen proven.
The Committee then went on to consider whether the proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In doing so it considered the aggravating factors, including that there was actual injury to animals, that the misconduct was sustained and repeated over a period of time, that the conduct directly contravened advice issued by the RCVS, and the blatant disregard of the RCVS’s regulatory role.
It also considered that Mrs Mullen had previously been suspended from the Register by the Disciplinary Committee for two months in April 2017 for failing to have Professional Indemnity Insurance arrangements in place.
It considered that there were no mitigating factors in the case and accordingly found serious professional misconduct in relation to all the proven charges.
The Committee then considered what the most appropriate sanction would be.
Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Animal welfare lies at the heart of the veterinary profession.
"The Committee considers that [Mrs Mullen’s] treatment of Cleo and Boycie constitutes a breach of this fundamental tenet of the profession.
"Other serious findings of disgraceful conduct against [Mrs Mullen] are her failure to provide informed consent, failure to provide details about out-of-hours cover, failure to have in place Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII), continuing professional development (CPD), and failure to respond to the College’s request for information.”
The Committee considered that the conduct was so serious that the only means of protecting animal health and welfare and public confidence in the profession was to direct the Registrar to remove Mrs Mullen’s name from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons.
Judith added: “The Committee considers that [Mrs Mullen] has displayed a persistent lack of insight into the seriousness of her actions or their consequences.
"The Committee considers that [Mrs Mullen’s] conduct raises serious clinical concerns, shows disregard of obligations in relation to out-of-hours care, indicates deficiencies in making decisions, demonstrates an obstructive attitude to her regulator and creates a potential risk to patients.
"She has not engaged with the regulator, she has not demonstrated insight into her misconduct, has learned nothing from her previous suspension in relation to PII, and has done nothing to remediate her disgraceful conduct.
"There is no evidence that [Mrs Mullen} has complied with any of her obligations in relation to CPD."
“In the view of the Committee, if [Mrs Mullen] were permitted to remain on the Register, there would be a serious risk of harm to animals. She has demonstrated a reckless disregard for the obligations of a registered veterinary surgeon.”
Mrs Mullen has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.
As well as marking the 60th anniversary of the first RCVS-accredited Animal Nursing Auxiliary training scheme, the profession has also recently reached another milestone: 20,000 veterinary nurses on the Veterinary Nurses Register.
The Diamond Jubilee events include a series of webinars covering the past, present and future of the profession, with presentations from eminent veterinary nurses, including:
The RCVS will also be running a series of podcasts with prominent members of the profession. Each podcast episode will have a different host, reflecting on an area of veterinary nursing that they are passionate about.
The first webinar and podcast episode are available to watch and listen to on the Diamond Jubilee webpage www.rcvs.org.uk/VNdiamonds.
Matthew Rendle RVN, Chair of the Veterinary Nurses Council, said: “The veterinary nursing Diamond Jubilee celebrations are a fitting way of paying tribute to veterinary nursing – a profession that does so much for animal health and welfare. The celebrations will look back on all that has been achieved by the profession and give us an opportunity to engage with RVNs to come up with ideas for how we can continue to advance and develop our amazing profession.
“I am particularly happy about the fact that, earlier this month, I was informed that we have reached the milestone of 20,000 veterinary nurses on the Register which is an amazing achievement. When the VN Register was launched in 2007 there were just over 7,000 members of our profession – the fact we have almost trebled in number since then shows just how far we have come in a short space of time as invaluable members of the veterinary team providing professional care for the nation’s animals.”
Anyone wishing to take part in the celebrations can share their memories or pictures of veterinary nursing on social media, using the hashtag #VNDiamonds
Mr Wilson faced two charges. The first was that in October 2017, he provided inaccurate information to an insurer in respect of a Labrador he treated by saying that the dog was presented to him with a lame left foreleg on 13 June 2017, when in fact the dog was presented for treatment on 7 June 2017 and that his conduct was therefore dishonest and misleading.
The second charge was that between 17 January 2017 and 17 January 2018 he failed to have any arrangements in place for Professional Indemnity Insurance (a requirement of the Code of Professional Conduct) and then, that between 8 January and 5 December 2019, he failed to respond to reasonable requests from the RCVS regarding his Professional Indemnity Insurance.
Prior to the hearing, Mr Wilson made an application to the Committee to adjourn the hearing subject to the Committee accepting his undertakings to remove himself from the Register and never to apply to be restored.
Mr Wilson’s legal representative at the hearing submitted to the Disciplinary Committee that granting the application would be in the public interest on the basis that Mr Wilson was 68 years of age and had now retired from the profession and closed his practice, that he had dedicated his entire working life to veterinary practice, had a previously long and unblemished career with no other complaints, and that he was well-regarded by clients and professional colleagues.
The application was not opposed by the RCVS whose representative informed the Committee that, relating to the charge of dishonesty, the College had taken into account that the insurance claim form was not submitted by Mr Wilson himself, and that there is no evidence of any financial motivation behind the charge nor any allegation of harm to an animal.
Taking into account the submissions from Mr Wilson’s representatives and from the RCVS, as well as precedent cases for such applications, the Committee decided that Mr Wilson’s voluntary undertakings went well beyond any sanction that could be imposed by the Committee and considered that the application would protect the public interest, confidence in the profession, and the welfare of animals.
Professor Alistair Barr FRCVS, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee decided that this is not a case in which the public interest or the welfare of animals demands that there be a full hearing, with determinations made by the Disciplinary Committee. Taking into account proportionality, and weighing in the balance the public interest, the interests of justice, the need to protect the welfare of animals, as well as the interests of both parties, the Committee decided to accede to the respondent’s application.”
The full findings of the Disciplinary Committee can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The College says that 1CPD has been designed to facilitate the new outcomes-focused CPD model which was introduced in 2020 and becomes mandatory from 2022.
An important part of this new model is reflection, so 1CPD encourages veterinary nurses to reflect on the quality, relevance and impact of their CPD activities.
Dr Linda Prescott-Clements, RCVS Director of Education said: "Although the outcomes-focused element of these changes won’t become mandatory until January 2022, we recommend that you incorporate reflection in your cycle of planning, doing and recording CPD as soon as possible, and our new 1CPD app makes this much easier to do than before.
"Research has found that reflection enhances the quality, impact and relevance of CPD as professionals consider what they have learned, how they will apply their learning and how it will improve their practice. To support this CPD model, which research has shown has a positive impact on both professionalism and patient outcomes, the 1CPD platform facilitates reflection by allowing you to record your reflective notes on your recorded CPD activities, through a variety of means including text, audio or uploading a document."
The old PDR was taken offline last Friday and all of the data saved in the PDR has been transferred to 1CPD.
The 1CPD app is now available for both Apple and Android devices, available on and off line, and through a new dedicated website, all of which is now accessible using the same credentials used to access My Account.
Richard Burley, RCVS Chief Technology Officer, said: "1CPD provides a range of enhancements to RCVS’ previous offerings in this space and represents an important step forward in the College’s digital approach. Built on the latest best-practice technologies, it improves on every aspect of our previous approach to CPD support, delivering the first stage of a new, integrated, career-long CPD support capability for members."
The launch of 1CPD also coincides with a change to the way that the College assesses CPD compliance, moving to an annual CPD requirement of 35 hours a year for veterinary surgeons and 15 hours a year for veterinary nurses.
More information on the CPD changes, along with accompanying resources, can be found on the RCVS website: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/cpd2020.
So that practices can make sure everyone in their team is aware of the changes, the RCVS has also produced a poster which can be downloaded at: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/publications/cpd-poster/.
For more information, contact the Education team on 0203 795 5595. For technical advice about 1CPD, email the RCVS at onecpd@rcvs.org.uk.
Dr Henry faced one charge, that in January 2020 she wrote and/or signed an undated letter confirming that a ewe had died in transit to the surgery due to dystocia and peri-parturient stress, when in fact she had euthanised the animal at the veterinary practice the day before. The letter, which was addressed 'To whom it may concern’, was on practice letterheaded paper and signed "Louise Henry MRCVS".
The second part of the charge outlined that her conduct concerning the letter was dishonest.
The Committee heard that the ewe was lambing and brought to the practice by a client. Dr Henry was on-call at the time and advised a Caesarean section. The client agreed and Dr Henry delivered two live lambs and one dead lamb.
Dr Henry was concerned about the welfare of the ewe post-surgery because of the risk of peritonitis and advised that the ewe should be euthanised.
The client agreed to the ewe being euthanised and then asked Dr Henry to write a letter in which it was stated that the ewe had died in transit on route to the practice. Dr Henry agreed to write the letter in which she falsely certified that the ewe had died in transit.
The letter came to light when the practice director found it in an insurance file. The practice arranged an investigatory meeting with Dr Henry where she admitted that writing the letter was an error of judgement. When asked about her conduct, Dr Henry explained that the client had subsequently been dissatisfied with the letter she had written and asked her to change it. She refused to amend the letter and told him that it was wrong of her to have written it in the first place and that she regretted having done so.
Dr Henry told the Committee that she valued integrity very highly and that she was deeply ashamed that she had been prepared to write the dishonest letter.
The Committee heard several testimonials from people who had worked with or studied alongside Dr Henry, who all attested to her skill as a veterinary surgeon and that they had no concerns about her integrity and honesty. She self-reported her actions from January to the RCVS and from the outset admitted the facts of the charge. During the hearing, Dr Henry submitted that her action of dishonest false certification amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
Dr Martin Whiting, chairing the Committee, and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee considered that, in this case, the aggravating features were limited and the mitigating factors extensive. There was no premeditated dishonesty or financial gain involved, there was no actual harm or risk of harm to an animal or human and this was a single incident in an otherwise unblemished 13-year career. The Committee found that the shame and remorse expressed by Dr Henry were entirely genuine. Her conduct on this occasion was entirely untypical of her practise.
“After careful consideration, the Committee concluded that the substantial mitigating features permitted it to take the somewhat unusual course of issuing a reprimand in a case involving dishonesty. In taking this course, the Committee attached significant weight not only to the isolated nature of the event but also to the genuine insight shown by Dr Henry and the lasting impact this event has had upon her. In the Committee’s assessment, a reasonable and fully informed member of the public would, in this particular case, regard a reprimand as a sanction which protected the public interest in the profession and upheld its standards.”
The full documentation for the hearing can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The first meeting takes place on Thursday 27th May from 12.30pm to 1.30pm. It will look at how veterinary practices have had to work differently and adapt to the challenges posed by the coronavirus pandemic.
Chris Tufnell, RCVS Council Member and Innovation Lead (pictured right), will be chairing the session. He said: “In the past 15 months we have been in innovation overdrive, adapting at a unprecedented pace to transform how we work, serve our clients and patients, and continue to function as veterinary businesses in less-than-ideal circumstances.
"This event is an opportunity to take a step back, look at what has happened, how we have changed and consider what aspects of these changes we might carry over when we return to near normal working conditions.
"For those who join us, we would like to know what kind of innovation solutions you and your colleagues have developed, and share your stories and ideas to help and inspire others.”
Joining Chris on the panel will be a selection of veterinary professionals who will share their own experience of how they have had to adapt the way they work during the pandemic. Participants include Anita Patel, an RCVS-recognised Specialist in Veterinary Dermatology, who runs her own dermatology referral service, and Richard Artingstall, Clinical Director of Vale Referrals in Gloucestershire.
The event, which will feature short presentations followed by a reflective discussion, is free to attend and can be signed up to via its Eventbrite page at: www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/152857028487
More meetings are planned for later in the year:
If you have any questions about the sessions or would like to take part as a speaker, email the ViVet Manager, Sophie Rogers on s.rogers@rcvs.org.uk or info@vivet.org.uk
The interviews give an insight into the career advice the interviewees got from their school, what steps they took to secure their place to study for their qualification, what hurdles they had to overcome and what can be done to address issues around the under-representation of some groups within the profession.
The College says the aim is to help inspire school age children to consider a veterinary career through frank conversations with role models who have chosen a vet or vet nursing career.
The first film is an interview with Rheanna Ellis, a 2021 Nottingham Vet School graduate who is now working as a veterinary surgeon at a West Midlands practice. In her interview she talks about her passion to become a vet from a young age, how she went about researching and preparing for her job, and the importance of perseverance.
To help promote the videos and the College’s ongoing work on diversity and inclusion, the RCVS has partnered with the official Black History Month campaign and website which will also be hosting the videos.
Many of the interviews have been carried out by Mandisa Greene, RCVS Senior Vice-President, who helped lead the RCVS Black History Month activities last year as the College’s first ever black President.
Mandisa said: “It’s important that we demonstrate commitment to diversity and inclusion and have a role in acknowledging and accentuating diverse voices within the professions. Throughout these video interviews I’ve had the opportunity to speak to some inspiring newly qualified and student veterinary professionals who are all clearly very passionate about supporting animal health and welfare.
“I hope that school children from all backgrounds who watch these videos will get the chance to see how rewarding and enjoyable a veterinary career can be and that they’ll be inspired to consider becoming a vet or vet nurse in the future.”
The RCVS will be publishing more video interviews on its YouTube channel through October and beyond.
The VN Golden Jubilee Award was given to Kirsty Cavill RVN (pictured right), a trained animal physiotherapist who has used her skills and knowledge to help older dogs with canine arthritis and train and advise others on therapeutic techniques.
A new award, called the Compassion Award, was given to Olivia Wassell RVN for her work at the Blue Cross Animal Hospital in London, where she has been praised by her colleagues for her professionalism, positive attitude and dedication to animal health and welfare as a relatively new member of staff working under difficult conditions during the pandemic.
Other awards given this year were:
Queen’s Medal - to Dr John (Iain) Glen MRCVS (pictured right) who, at AstraZeneca, was responsible for the discovery and development of the anaesthetic drug propofol, one of the world’s most common anaesthetics for medical and veterinary use.
Honorary Associateships - Two were awarded this year. The first went to Professor Stuart Carter, Emeritus Professor of Veterinary Pathology at the University of Liverpool’s Institution of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences. The second was awarded to Anthony Martin, a philanthropist with a particular interest in supporting national and international charities working with the veterinary profession to improve animal welfare.
Impact Award - Two were awarded this year. The first went to Alison Lambert, the founder and owner of veterinary business consultancy Onswitch which helps veterinary businesses create customer-centred practice so that pets, horses and livestock receive the best care. The second was awarded to Dr Gwenllian Rees for her involvement in the Arwain Vet Cymru (AVC) project, a collaborative national antimicrobial stewardship program for farm vets in Wales.
Inspiration Awards - Daniella Dos Santos MRCVS was nominated for her leadership role at the BVA during the early stage of the coronavirus pandemic. The second award went to Professor Mandy Peffers, a Wellcome Trust Clinical Intermediate Fellow in Musculoskeletal & Ageing Science at the Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences at the University of Liverpool.
The International Award was posthumously awarded to Emeritus Professor Michael Day, the prolific researcher and writer.
Another Compassion Award was given to David Martin MRCVS for his work helping practitioners identify the signs of non-accidental injury.
Another new award this year is the Student Community Award, given to Jack Church, who - on top of his studies - has been volunteering on a covid ward, and Lavinia Economu, for her work to inspire young people from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) and different socio-economic backgrounds into the veterinary professions.
Mandisa Greene MRCVS, RCVS President, said: “I am so impressed by the breadth and depth of the awards nominations that we received this year which demonstrate the very best that the veterinary professions have to offer.
“From veterinary students to veterinary surgeons and nurses who have been practising for decades, all our award winners demonstrate that veterinary professionals and veterinary science has a profound and positive impact not only on animal health and welfare but also wider society. I am immensely happy and proud for them all and look forward to formally being able to present them with their awards later this year.”
A formal awards ceremony, hosted by Mandisa, will take place on Thursday, 23 September 2021. Further details on the event and how to attend will be published later this year.
Ms Parody faced two charges, the first of which related to her treatment of a cat named Shadow, which had multiple elements:
The second charge was that her conduct in relation to all parts of the first charge was dishonest.
At the outset of the hearing Ms Parody’s counsel admitted to the majority of the elements of the first charge, although denied she had removed the microchip in order to mislead others about Shadow’s identity.
Ms Parody also admitted that her failures to inform the owner that euthanasia had not been carried out, of the treatment plan, of the removal of the microchip and that she had taken Shadow home was dishonest.
However, she denied dishonesty in relation to failing to make adequate records.
The Committee went on to consider the facts of the remaining, contested charges.
After hearing evidence from a number of witnesses, the Committee concluded that it was not proven that Dr Parody removed the microchip in order to mislead others about his identity, and that, in this respect, she had therefore not acted dishonestly.
In relation to whether Ms Parody was acting dishonestly in relation to failure to make adequate clinical records, the Committee also found this not proven.
Having determined the facts of the case, the Committee went on to consider if the proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In terms of aggravating factors, it considered that there was actual injury to an animal – albeit small and while the cat was under sedation - and that Ms Parody had engaged in conduct that was in breach of a client’s trust.
In mitigation, the Committee considered the immense pressure that Ms Parody and her colleagues in the practice were under at that time due to the coronavirus pandemic and the fact that she had acted in a way which she thought was best for Shadow’s welfare and which clouded the rest of her decision making.
Furthermore, the Committee considered this was a single isolated incident, that she took the decision without the opportunity for full reflection and the length of time since the original incident.
However, it found Ms Parody guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to all the proven charges.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “However well-intentioned, Dr Parody made some serious errors of judgment with regard to her approach to Shadow and embarked upon a course of dishonest conduct, which started with her failure to inform the owner about her decision not to euthanase Shadow, was followed by her treatment of Shadow, including his castration and microchip removal, all without the consent of the owner, and ended with her taking Shadow home over Christmas, again without the owner’s consent.
"In addition, she failed to make adequate clinical records with regards to Shadow.”
The Committee then went on to consider the most appropriate sanction for Ms Parody.
It heard a large number of positive testimonials as to her character and professionalism from both clients and former and current work colleagues.
The Committee also considered further mitigating factors such as the fact she had no previous disciplinary issues, had a long and unblemished career both before and since this isolated incident, her open and frank admissions regarding some of the charges, the significant impact she displayed regarding her misconduct, and her genuine expressions of remorse and apology.
Paul Morris added: “The Committee recognises that there is a scale of seriousness of dishonesty and therefore gave careful consideration as to where Dr Parody’s dishonest conduct fell to be judged.
"The Committee was concerned with her conduct between 20 December and 31 December 2021, as found proved.
"What led to what she has admitted as dishonest behaviour, was her acting to protect the welfare of the cat.
“The Committee was confident that she most certainly did not set out to act dishonestly.
"She made an initial error of judgement and everything that followed flowed from that.
"What she went on to do was something of a panicky attempt to cover up what she had done initially, so that she could decide on how to rectify it but, the Committee was satisfied, all done with the best of intentions and in the best interests of the cat and its owner.
"She had not acted out of any personal or financial gain or malicious intent.
"She had created a mess and she was trying to sort that mess out.”
After deciding that a reprimand was the most appropriate and proportionate sanction to impose, Paul Morris concluded: “In all the, somewhat exceptional, circumstances of this case, the Committee was satisfied that a reprimand would provide adequate protection to animals, as it was satisfied Dr Parody was most unlikely to ever make such a flawed set of decisions again.
"The Committee was satisfied that Dr Parody 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 be served in this case by a reprimand.”
The updated standards document applies to the awarding organisations and higher education institutions that set the veterinary nursing curricula, the centres (such as further education colleges) that deliver the courses, and the affiliated RCVS-approved training practices where SVNs undertake their placements.
The updated standards were approved by RCVS Veterinary Nurses (VN) Council in February 2021 after feedback from stakeholders.
There are six overarching standards within the framework, which also provide guidance on how the individual standards can be evidenced. The overarching standards are: learning culture; governance and quality; student empowerment; educators and assessors; curricula and assessment; and effective clinical learning.
The College says the new Standards Framework, which draws together all the previous separate guidance for awarding organisations, centres and training practices, allows greater flexibility for how training can be delivered.
Julie Dugmore, RCVS Director of Veterinary Nursing, said: “During 2020, accreditations and quality monitoring audits were conducted against the RCVS Standards Framework for Veterinary Nurse Education and Training. Feedback from all involved was positive but reflected a need for clarification in some areas and further examples to assist with evidencing compliance.
“Since February 2021, four accreditations have been conducted against the updated standards, the results of which demonstrate a positive move towards the outcomes based approach to accreditation and quality monitoring.”
The full set of standards can be read online at www.rcvs.org.uk/standards-framework-vn.
201 practices took part in the survey between 25th February and 4th March 2021. The main findings were:
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, said: “Although this survey took place in the midst of the lockdown and before the schools re-opened, there were some positive results here around staffing and the financial situation for practices. Hopefully this will mean that, as the restrictions ease going from spring into summer, many practices and practice staff will be in a position to return to a near-normal level of service and business.
"There were, however, still a few areas of concern, some of which will hopefully be resolved by the forthcoming easing of restrictions, for example, the difficulty in obtaining independent witnesses for the destruction of controlled drugs, with some 34% of practices reporting difficulties, compared to 20% in December.
“Once again, I would like to thank all those practices who responded to this and previous surveys, and continue to provide invaluable evidence and feedback about the current state of veterinary practice.”
The full results of the survey can be downloaded at: www.rcvs.org.uk/publications
The College says the course breaks down the supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct into clear, practical advice that can be easily applied in daily practice.
It covers areas such as advertising, endorsing products and services, and using social media in a way that upholds professional standards, including:
The course begins with a short test to assess your current understanding of the topic, followed by three bite-sized modules and a final reflection section.
The course takes about an hour to complete and counts towards your CPD requirements.
academy.rcvs.org.uk
Ms Francis faced two charges, the first of which had three elements:
The first was that in January 2021 she took one box of buprenorphine from the practice where she worked.
The second was that in early June 2022 she took another 15 boxes of buprenorphine together with an unspecified number of vials of the drug.
The third was that later that month, she took another box of the drug.
The second charge was that her behaviour was dishonest, was not acting in accordance with instructions from a veterinary surgeon or a valid prescription and she failed to record the amount of the drug taken from the practice.
At the outset of the hearing Ms Francis admitted taking the one box of buprenorphine at the end of June 2022, but denied the other elements of the charge.
After interviewing witnesses, the Committee decided that on the basis of the evidence presented, the allegations that Ms Francis had taken a box of buprenorphine in January 2021, or that she had taken vials of buprenorphine in June 2022, were unproven.
With regard to the allegation that she had taken 15 boxes of buprenorphine in June 2022, the Committee determined that Ms Francis had no case to answer, due to insufficient evidence.
This meant that the second charge, of dishonest behaviour, was only considered in respect of the element of the first charge that Ms Francis had admitted to (the one box of buprenorphine she admitted taking in late June 2022).
Here, the Committee found that Ms Francis’ conduct was not dishonest, but found it proved that she did not act in accordance with instructions from a vet or a valid prescription, and found it proved that she failed to record the amount of the drug taken from the cupboard on the internal stock sheet.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The respondent had removed a box of buprenorphine from the drugs cupboard before she had received a prescription for that medication.
"She intended to seek such a prescription from the vet, who was in the practice at the time and from whom she had just received prescriptions for other pain-relieving medications.
"As it happened the vet issued the prescription for the buprenorphine which the respondent sought.
“The respondent has acknowledged her fault in removing the box of buprenorphine before the vet had issued a prescription.
This appears to have been the result of a momentary decision on her part that Vetergesic would be of benefit to her dog.
"She also omitted to sign the relevant log.
"The evidence which the Committee heard suggested that this omission was commonplace at the practice.
“In acting in this way, as the respondent acknowledges, she fell below appropriate standards.
"The Committee has concluded, however, that in all the circumstances her conduct did not fall far below those standards and could not realistically be described as disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”