View all veterinary jobs
All Schedule 2 controlled drugs (with the exception of quinalbarbitone) and certain Schedule 3 controlled drugs are legally required to be stored in a locked container which is compliant with the Misuse of Drugs (Safe Custody) Regulations 1973; however, the College considers it advisable for all Schedule 3 controlled drugs to be stored in the controlled drug cabinet.
Controlled drug cabinets must only be accessed by a veterinary surgeon, or anoher nominated responsible person at the practice. In the case of a nominated person who is not a veterinary surgeon removing controlled drugs from the cabinet, the legal and professional responsibility remains with the veterinary surgeon whose direction they are under.
The College’s full guidance, including advice on use, location, and design and construction of cabinets, can be found in the Controlled Drugs Guidance and the Practice Standards Scheme Manual. Many police forces in the UK also have Controlled Drugs Liaison Officers who offer advice on various matters, including safe storage.
To download the Controlled Drugs Guidance, which includes further guidance on areas such as storage and destruction of controlled drugs, please visit the College’s website: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/publications/controlled-drugs-guidance/
To access the PSS Manual, visit the College’s website: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/practice-standards-scheme/
Contact details for Controlled Drugs Liaison Officers by area can be obtained from the Association of Police Controlled Drugs Liaison Officers: http://www.apcdlo.org.uk/contact.html.
Chris will also be donating any money he raises throughout the course of his Presidency to those same charities.
His chosen charities are: Vetlife, Riding for the Disabled Association (RDA), the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals (PDSA), Hearing Dogs, and The Gambia Horse and Donkey Trust (GHDT).
Chris said: "I chose the charities because I'm dedicated to charities that have a wide effect. The GHDT and the PDSA, by improving the health and welfare of animals, directly benefit the health and wellbeing of the communities in which they work. The GHDT dramatically improves peoples’ lives economically by increasing the working lives of their animals, almost all of which are transport animals, while the PDSA enhances the lives of the less well off by allowing them to keep animals and afford their veterinary care.
"Riding for the Disabled Association and Hearing Dogs for the Deaf then both use animals to help people, strengthening this vital human animal bond that runs through all of these charities. You have to witness the interaction between deaf or disabled people with the dogs and ponies respectively to fully appreciate how much this means to them. Unlike single interventions, these charities provide assistance that keeps on giving.
"Finally, none of this is possible without a healthy veterinary community and Vetlife plays a significant part in ensuring this. Good mental health and wellbeing is essential to the delivery of a good service, and it's important that we do everything we can to ensure that any veterinary professionals that suffer get the assistance they need.”
The charities have already been in touch to thank Chris and the College, and to detail how it will help their activities.
Graham Dick, Vetlife’s Honorary Treasurer, said: “Vetlife is currently expanding its vital support services to meet the changing needs of the veterinary community so we are sincerely grateful that Chris Tufnell has chosen our charity to benefit from his fundraising activities during his year as President. It is heartening that all the major veterinary organisations are so supportive of Vetlife and eager to work together to address the issues that many people in the veterinary community are struggling with."
Heather Armstrong, the Director of the GHDT, said: "We would like to give our very sincere thanks to Chris Tufnell, President of the RCVS for choosing us as one of his charities. Over the years we have relied on volunteer vets from UK to provide training to our staff and to Gambian livestock workers. This is helping to increase Gambian veterinary capacity and we hope is also giving British vets a small insight into global veterinary problems. The British veterinary profession should be very proud, it has enabled us to achieve so much in the last 14 years and we are immensely grateful to each and every vet who has been out to help including Chris, who has kindly helped us in the past with training."
Rosie Gibbons, Challenge & Community Events Fundraiser UK at the PDSA, said: "The donations received through the RCVS’ President’s Fund to PDSA will ensure that someone’s much loved pet will receive the treatment and healthy life they deserve. It will also ensure that our veterinary teams can continue to educate people about responsible pet ownership and issue preventative treatments, making the lives of so many animals much more bearable in the future."
Sal Atkinson, Fundraising Manager for the RDA, said: "We are thrilled that Chris has chosen RDA as one of this year’s RCVS President’s Fund charities. RDA relies on voluntary donations such as this to enable us to provide life changing therapy through horses to disabled adults and children in the UK. We currently have over 3,000 horses and ponies who work with our riders, carriage drivers, volunteers and equine advisors and this support will really help us to offer more opportunities to disabled people in the community."
The President’s Christmas Box donation is made every year in lieu of sending out RCVS Christmas cards. Previous recipients have included Worldwide Veterinary Service, Mind, Canine Partners, Hounds for Heroes, and the Veterinary Benevolent Fund.
According to the College, the increase in fees is needed primarily to develop its regulatory capacity for paraprofessionals. However it also says it needs to increase fees to pay for a new, Midlands-based headquarters designed by Foster and Partners, following the announcement last year about the sale of Horseferry Road.
Brexit is another significant factor in the decision to raise fees.
As has been widely reported, the College has already been on a number of fact-finding trips to India, with a view to making up the shortage of vets in the UK with graduates from Indian vet schools. But however forward-thinking these trips were, they have not borne fruit in time for Brexit.
For this reason, the College has announced that it has set aside an emergency contingency fund of £6M in order to fly as many as twenty veterinary surgeons from India and pay them to act as OVs on short term contracts in the event of a no deal Brexit.
An RCVS spokesperson said: "Brexit has dominated proceedings over the last two years, and we have been working collaboratively with our colleagues in Defra and the BVA to make appropriate plans to ensure that vital veterinary work will continue, whatever the outcome of Brexit. However, we have been unable to persuade the government to put veterinary surgeons on the Shortage Occupation List and our only alternative is to recruit from abroad."
Dr Frill Poao from the Indian Veterinary Association Kerala said: "We are standing by to help our British colleagues in their time of need".
Photo: Could the new RCVS headquarters look something like this? Foster and Partners also designed London City Hall. Gary Knight / Wikipedia CC BY-SA 2.0
The trial starts on Monday 11 July and will continue for three months to allow the College to determine levels of demand for such a service and, therefore, whether it should be made permanent.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Acting Registrar, said: "This was a potential service identified in our Strategic Plan as a way of allowing veterinary professionals to have informal, confidential, discussions with members of the Professional Conduct Department about potential fitness to practise issues, short of formally raising a concern.
"Although any discussions via the new reporting line or email address will be confidential, if a veterinary surgeon or a veterinary nurse subsequently wishes to raise a formal concern about another veterinary professional, then they generally will need to identify both themselves and the individual in order to take it through our investigation process.
"We have developed a bespoke concerns form for members of the professions who do want to raise concerns about other professionals."
Veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who wish to contact a member of the RCVS Professional Conduct Department in confidence can do so by calling 07599 958 294 between 9am and 5pm, or by emailing reporting@rcvs.org.uk.
The bespoke concerns from for members of the profession can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns.
In a letter to Danny, RCVS President Christopher Tufnell wrote:
"As the regulator of the veterinary profession, we place an emphasis on the importance of evidence-based veterinary medicine. We therefore recommend that there should be a cautious approach to homeopathy for animals and that normal evidential standards should be applied to complementary treatments."
Danny said: "A cautious approach? What, like this claim by the BAHVS that homeopathy cures cancer?. Or would you say that this claim on national TV represents a cautious approach?
"Talking about homeopathy and normal evidential standards in the same breath is oxymoronic. If you apply normal evidential standards to homeopathy, it is completely ineffective and should not therefore be used in animals."
Mr Tufnell wrote: "We believe it is also essential that such treatments, until they can be proved, are complementary rather than 'alternative' and that they are therefore used alongside conventional treatment."
Danny said: "This argument makes sense whilst evidence-gathering for new treatment modalities. Homeopathy, however, has been with us since 1796. In that time, there has been no good evidence that homeopathy is effective for any condition. Against that, we now have the benefit of an increasing body of meta analyses that show it isn’t. How much more evidence does the RCVS require?"
Mr Tufnell wrote: "Whatever views there may be within the veterinary profession, it is clear that there is a demand from some clients for complementary therapies for their animals."
Danny said: "That may be true, but client demand is not an argument for prescribing medicines shown not to work. Nor should ill-informed client demand trump animal welfare"
Mr Tufnell added: "It is better that they [clients] should seek advice from a veterinary surgeon - who is qualified to make a diagnosis, and can be held to account for the treatment given - rather than turning to a practitioner who does not have veterinary training."
Danny said: "It makes no difference to the animal's suffering whether effective treatment is withheld by a layperson or a qualified vet. At what point do we trust the clinical judgement of vets who subscribe to this magical thinking? In the case of hyperthyroidism in a cat, at what point do we trust them to start giving proper treatment? Maybe when the T4 levels reach a certain number? Or when renal failure kicks in? Or when the cat loses a certain percentage of its body weight?"
Finally, Mr Tufnell wrote: "homeopathy is currently accepted by society and recognised by UK medicines legislation and does not, in itself, cause harm to animals."
Danny said: "I'm not sure how it is possible to claim homeopathy is 'accepted by society'. What constitutes 'societal acceptance'? The NHS says that: 'The ideas that underpin homeopathy are not accepted by mainstream science, and are not consistent with long-accepted principles on the way that the physical world works'; the Australian Government says: 'Homeopathy should not be used to treat health conditions that are chronic, serious, or could become serious.' Clearly homeopathy is far from being accepted by society.
"Even if it was, the argument that we should prescribe medicines because they are 'societally accepted' is no different to the argument that we should do so because there is 'consumer demand.' Both are plainly wrong. Presumably the RCVS wouldn't approve of veterinary surgeons prescribing antibiotics just because there is 'consumer demand', or because they are 'societally accepted'.
As to the veterinary medicines regulations, homeopathic remedies were ‘grandfathered’ and have not had to prove efficacy to become authorised. So their recognition by UK medicines legislation is meaningless.
"Lastly, homeopathy does, in itself, cause harm to animals when given ahead of, or in place of proven treatments."
At the same time as Danny was running his petition for banning homeopathy, the Campaign For Rational Veterinary Medicine has been running a petition which instead asks that the RCVS takes steps to allow animal owners to make a more informed decision, thereby limiting the harm that homeopathy causes animals.
This petition, which is for the veterinary profession only, has so far gathered over 400 signatures, and the campaign organisers are now inviting anyone who signed the petition to ban homeopathy to consider signing this one as a pragmatic alternative.
During the four-day hearing, the Committee heard evidence in respect of three separate heads of charge brought against Mr Shah following a castration operation conducted on Shadow, a six-year old Newfoundland dog, which took place on 20 June 2014.
The three charges were as follows:
There was no complaint made as to the undertaking of the operation itself, and the Committee followed the advice from the Legal Assessor that each charge should be considered separately. When making its decision, the Committee did not take into account the fact that Shadow had died as it is impossible to say whether he would have survived had Mr Shah acted differently.
The Committee found each of the allegations against Mr Shah proved. In respect of the first charge the Committee heard from two expert witnesses, Professor Williams and Mr Plumley, who agreed that the decision to discharge Shadow at about 6pm on 20 June 2014, given his condition, was inappropriate.
The Committee considers that discharging Shadow at that time into the care of the owner given his state on discharge, was grossly negligent and a serious error of judgement. It therefore found Mr Shah to be guilty of the first charge.
The Committee then considered that, after being alerted to Shadow’s continued lack of progress by the telephone call from Gemma Ballantyne between 30 and 45 minutes after discharge, Mr Shah exacerbated the situation by the inadequacy of his response in dealing with the concerns raised which, in the Committee’s view, represented a continuation of his previous poor judgement.
The Committee considered that Mr Shah was under a duty of care to advise Gemma Ballantyne to seek urgent veterinary attention for Shadow and by his own admission he failed to do so, and he was therefore found guilty of the second charge.
During that telephone call Mr Shah also gave no further details about the out-of-hours care available to Gemma Ballantyne other than to inform her that there would be an additional cost.
He did not seek confirmation that any such information been supplied by his colleague, Emma Martin (who at the relevant time was a student nurse), however, and at no time did he see Gemma Ballantyne in possession of the discharge sheet. The Committee therefore found Mr Shah guilty of this final head of charge.
The Committee did accept that there was no element of dishonesty, nor was there an aim of financial gain in the case. The Committee also considered that Mr Shah was acting in good faith at all times. It also accepted that Mr Shah was entitled to assume that normal practice had been followed and that a previously compiled discharge sheet, containing the number of the out-of-hours provider, had been supplied to Miss Ballantyne.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "Balancing all of the factors as the Committee must, it is clear that on this occasion Mr Shah’s conduct fell far short of that which is expected and it therefore finds he conducted himself disgracefully in a professional respect."
Mr Green added: "In imposing the sanction of a reprimand, the Committee urges Mr Shah in the strongest possible terms to ensure that his future conduct by way of training and support systems within his practice are such as to avoid any possibility of a future incident such as this occurring in order to ensure animal welfare and public confidence in the veterinary profession. The Committee notes that in her evidence, Emma Martin said that the working practices at the surgery have been changed and the Committee expects that all animals kept in the care of Mr Shah are fully monitored, examined and assessed in relation to their condition before being discharged."
The original deadline for nominations for the three honours (the Queen’s Medal, Golden Jubilee Award and Honorary Associateship) was Friday 16 September – this has now been moved to Friday 21 October 2016.
Chris Tufnell, President of the RCVS, said: "Do you know someone who goes above-and-beyond the call of duty? Whose achievements have had a tangible impact on their profession or the veterinary and animal health and welfare sector at large? Then we would strongly encourage you to nominate them for an RCVS Honour. Those who are successful will receive their award at our Annual General Meeting and Awards Day where their achievements will be described and recognised in front of their peers."
The Queen’s Medal was introduced in 2013 and is the highest honour that the College can bestow upon a veterinary surgeon in recognition of those who have achieved a highly distinguished career and outstanding achievements. Nominations can be made by any Member of the RCVS in respect of another veterinary surgeon.
The Golden Jubilee Award was introduced in 2011 to mark the 50th anniversary of the first RCVS training course for veterinary nurses and now recognises those nurses who are taking a leadership role within the profession. Nominations can be made by either veterinary nurses or veterinary surgeons in respect of a veterinary nurse.
Finally, nominations can also be made for Honorary Associateship which is eligible for those who, while not veterinary surgeons or nurses, have had a significant impact in the veterinary field. Previous winners have included scientists, farmers, farriers, educationalists and journalists.
Further information about making nominations for each of these awards, including nominations forms, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/honours. All awards will be bestowed at RCVS Day 2017 in July next year.
Those with questions about making a nomination can contact Peris Dean, Executive Secretary, on p.dean@rcvs.org.uk
The Disciplinary Committee made its decision last Friday, following an adjournment of the case, which was initially heard in May of this year.
There were three heads of charge against Mr Hough:
The Committee found the majority of the first head of charge not proven, with the exception of the charges that Mr Hough failed to provide and ensure adequate overnight care for Mya and that it was inappropriate and unreasonable for him to plan for the wound management to be undertaken by Mya’s owners following the second procedure on 21 May 2014.
Regarding the second head of charge, the Committee found it proven that Mr Hough did fail to provide information about post-operative care and out-of-hours cover details to Mya’s owners. However it found Mr Hough’s failure to communicate with the owners regarding treatment options and to provide them with adequate information as to Mya’s post-operative condition not proven.
The third head of charge in its entirety was admitted and found proven.
The Committee also found that those charges that were found proven amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect with the exception of Mr Hough’s failure to provide and/or ensure adequate overnight care and his failure to failure to provide out-of-hours details to Mya’s owners.
In deciding on an appropriate sanction, the Committee expressed significant concerns over Mr Hough’s treatment of Mya, in particular his "failure to devise and implement proper and sufficient procedures to ensure that this dog was not released to owners unless it was safe for her to be released and... that the owners were fully advised as to what was required of them."
The Committee felt that Mr Hough had given "insufficient attention" to Mya’s post-operative care but did accept that the conduct represented a single incident. During the course of the hearing the Committee also heard mitigating evidence given on behalf of Mr Hough, with a number of written testimonials as well as witness evidence in support of his clinical expertise and surgical skills.
The Committee accepted that Mr Hough had taken to heart the lessons to be learnt from the charges against him and had implemented a number of written protocols to prevent recurrence of the shortcomings in his treatment of Mya. Furthermore, the Committee also found that Mr Hough had demonstrated insight into the conduct found against him and that he had apologised for the disparaging remarks he made about other veterinary practitioners.
Alistair Barr, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "In short, the Committee is persuaded that Mr Hough has made a good start in putting in place systems to ensure that the interests and welfare of the animals treated at his practice surgeries are not discharged from care until they are fully ready to be discharged and that the owners of such animals will, in future, be fully informed of what might be asked and required of them when their animals are returned into their care after surgery."
He added: "There are no other areas of [Mr Hough’s] professional practices which appear to the Committee to call for improvements. Accordingly, the Committee is persuaded on this evidence that there is reason to believe that the lessons which Mr Hough needed to learn have been learnt and concludes, therefore, that the sanction of a formal and solemn reprimand adequately meets the needs of the public interest in, and requirements of, this particular case. Mya did make a full recovery from her extensive surgery but she and her owners deserved better post-surgery advice and support."
As with last year the RCVS has sent the annual renewal notice to the majority of veterinary nurses by email. This year only 1,086 veterinary nurses have been contacted by post – down from last year, when around 3,500 had letters sent to them.
Text message reminders will also be sent to those for whom the College holds a mobile number.
Nicola South, Head of Registration, said: "It is great to see that we have been able to respond to members’ feedback and increase our contact by email and text with veterinary nurses, but I would like to suggest that VNs should regularly check their email for information from the RCVS.
"Unfortunately a larger than normal amount of veterinary nurses were removed from the Register at the beginning of the year, and we would very much like to avoid this happening again. Each year we send the renewal notice at least four weeks before the 1 November deadline, so if you have not received your annual renewal notice, please contact us so that we can arrange for this to be sent to you again."
The annual renewal fee of £61 is due for payment by 1 November. If a veterinary nurse does not pay the annual renewal fee by the end of the year they will be removed from the Register.
Payments by debit or credit card can be made online via the ‘My Account’ area of the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/login) or by cheque, bank draft or bank transfer.
All veterinary nurses also need to confirm their Register details and their compliance with the RCVS continuing professional development requirement of 45 hours over a three-year period, and declare any convictions, cautions and/or adverse findings.
Any veterinary nurses who have not received an annual renewal email or letter by the end of September should contact the RCVS Registration Department on 020 7202 0707 or registration@rcvs.org.uk
Veterinary nurses with any queries about paying the annual renewal fee should contact the RCVS Finance Team 020 7202 0723 or finance@rcvs.org.uk
The traditional NVQ 'portfolio' system for student veterinary nurses could be phased out from next summer, under draft proposals from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Awarding Body, which has responsibility for the delivery of VN qualifications.
Proposals include an initial year of full-time college study, during which the student does not need to be employed in a Training Practice (TP), the introduction of compulsory farm animal work experience, the phasing out of the separate Equine Veterinary Nursing qualification and a reduction in practice-based assessment.
The catalyst for reviewing the VN qualification came from Ofqual's plans to introduce the new Qualifications and Credit Framework (QCF) from summer next year, which effectively scraps the NVQ in its current form. This gave the RCVS Awarding Body an excellent opportunity to reconsider work-based training for VNs in order to improve its effectiveness and efficiency.
The Awarding Body's proposals, on which comments are invited, aim to reduce bureaucracy for those involved with VN training, increase the number of practices able to take part and improve accessibility of training, ultimately increasing the number of qualified VNs available to the profession.
Under the new proposals, VN work-based training would be a two-year, 70-credit Level 3 qualification, equivalent to 700 hours' learning. The first year of this qualification could be delivered either as a full-time college course, or as a part-time day-release over two years (extending the complete training to three years). The first year would incorporate 25 days' work placement, including small animal, equine and farm animal environments - the first time a compulsory farm animal component has been introduced. This first year of the course could be directly accessed by school leavers, as there is no requirement for them to be employed in a practice.
Students would be employed in a Training Practice for the second 'clinical' year (or third year for part-time students). An online log of practical experience, similar to the Professional Development Phase for new veterinary graduates, would replace the current portfolio, with a more comprehensive end-of-year practical exam. There would no longer be a requirement for practice-based assessors, although students would still need to be supported by an experienced clinical mentor, a role many current assessors may assume.
The economic feasibility of Equine Veterinary Nurse (EVN) training was also considered, with the conclusion that a broader-based primary qualification, with all students carrying out work experience in a range of practice types, was more sustainable.
The number of training practices has long been recognised as a limiting factor in the UK's capacity to train VNs. In addition to standard TPs, proposals have therefore been made for Auxiliary TPs (ATPs). ATPs would be able to employ and train VN students even if they do not have the facilities to provide all of the work experience required: a formal agreement to allow students to fill the gaps at another practice would be in place.
Finally, the proposals include a beefed up range of post-registration education options, allowing Registered Veterinary Nurses to develop, and be recognised, in their own areas of interest. This would help to create a career ladder for RVNs and assist in their retention within the profession.
"The proposals have been developed following a period of consultation with those involved with the delivery of VN training, and with employers," says Jacqui Molyneux, RCVS Council Member and Chairman of the VN Awarding Body.
"Feedback suggests that the current syllabus and training provides competent nurses who are highly regarded within the profession, but that training is overly burdensome for the practices involved. This, coupled with a recognised shortage of both Training Practices and qualified VNs, meant it was appropriate to think more creatively about how the qualification could be delivered. We hope that the draft proposals will be welcomed by both the veterinary nursing and veterinary professions, and would urge people involved to let us know what they think."
The proposals are available on RCVSonline (www.rcvs.org.uk/latestnews ) - please email your comments to Miss Jane Dawson, Project Consultant (jkhdawson@aol.com), by 31 October 2009. It is appreciated that this is a short deadline, however, the time-frame of the QCF is driving development, as is the need to allow colleges and training providers the maximum possible time to develop the new training structure for 2010/11 delivery.
In June the College held a six-week consultation with the profession, asking for opinions on its proposal for an outcomes-based approach to CPD which would concentrate less on hours logged and more on interactive, reflective learning and measuring the impact that CPD has on the individual’s practice and patient health outcomes.
The proposed model for CPD had four key components: planning, doing, recording and reflecting. While an overall majority of the 3,357 people who responded to the College’s consultation agreed with the proposed changes to the CPD requirement, certain elements received less support than others. The lowest amount of support was received for the ‘reflection’ component with 35% of respondents disagreeing with it.
The RCVS Education Committee therefore decided that a pilot of a new outcomes-based approach should be held during 2017 with a group of volunteers, before making a recommendation to Council.
Professor Stephen May, who chaired the Working Group that developed the CPD proposals, said: "Because of the concern voiced by members of the profession responding to the consultation we decided that, at this stage, it would not be appropriate for the RCVS to move straight into this new way of doing CPD but that it would be more appropriate to hold a pilot. The idea is that we will explore some of the concerns around reflection and around the extra time and paperwork that people felt that a more reflective approach may lead to.
"We have taken all these comments into account and are now seeking to work with individual volunteers on this pilot. It is important to note that we are not only looking for volunteers who agree with what we are doing but also those who are apprehensive about it or even some who see it as something they do not support. We want to explore the full range of views and how we can move forward in changing our approach to CPD."
The pilot is expected to be launched in February next year and the College is now looking for volunteers who both support the proposals and have a ‘healthy scepticism’ about them. Volunteers will receive help and support throughout the trial and will also be invited to attend an introductory CPD meeting at the RCVS offices in February.
If you are interested in volunteering, contact Jenny Soreskog-Turp, RCVS CPD Officer, on cpd@rcvs.org.uk.
Further information, including the CPD Policy Working Party’s response to the consultation and the full interview with Stephen May, is available at www.rcvs.org.uk/CPDpilot.
Mr Beveridge had been removed from the Register following a disciplinary hearing in May 2013 in which he was found guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect with the Committee finding that he had treated clients badly, kept inadequate clinical records, was dishonest in his dealings with the College and that animals in his care were placed at risk. He subsequently appealed to the Privy Council but this was later withdrawn, resulting in him being formally removed from the Register in March 2014.
He first applied to be restored to the Register in 2015 but his application was refused by the Disciplinary Committee at a hearing in November 2015. At the time the Committee found him unfit for restoration to the Register because, following his removal, his veterinary medicines account had been used on an unauthorised basis to order prescription-only veterinary medicines, which reflected a "cavalier attitude to practice". Furthermore, the Committee found that he had not fully accepted the Committee’s original findings, had made inadequate effort in regards to engaging in continuing professional development (CPD) and also considered the seriousness of the original findings.
At the opening of his second hearing Mr Beveridge, who represented himself, sought to address the concerns that the Disciplinary Committee had outlined upon refusing his first application for restoration. Regarding his acceptance of the original findings, the Committee heard that he now apologised "unreservedly for his failings that led to erasure of his name from the Register" and the Committee considered that he had demonstrated a significant change in attitude from the previous restoration hearing where he had not fully accepted the reasons for being removed.
In considering issues of public protection the Committee also accepted that Mr Beveridge, until his original Disciplinary Committee hearing, had an unblemished professional record and had run a successful small animal practice for over 30 years. It considered numerous client testimonials as well as a petition signed by 600 clients from 2013.
The Committee also considered that there was no risk to the future welfare of animals in the event of Mr Beveridge being restored to the Register, noting the testimonials and references to satisfactory care and treatment given by Mr Beveridge to his patients.
Regarding CPD, Mr Beveridge produced evidence before the Committee that he had attended courses run by the North American Veterinary Community (NAVC) and the British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA). The Committee accepted that he had made "considerable progress" in terms of CPD.
In concluding the hearing Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "It is the judgement of the Committee that the conduct which resulted in the applicant’s name being removed from the Register is unlikely to be repeated. The applicant has satisfied the Committee that he is fit to be restored to the Register."
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has struck off Suffolk vet Oliver Fraser Lown after finding him guilty of five separate charges relating to the possession of extreme animal pornography and sexual activity with animals.
Mr Lown, who graduated from Szent Istvan University in Hungary and has stated that he has never practised in the UK, did not attend the Disciplinary Committee hearing but was represented by Mr Jo Cooper, a solicitor-advocate. He was accused of five charges of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect:
On the first day of the hearing, the respondent made an application to the Disciplinary Committee that the hearing should be held in private on the basis that any publicity about the case 'would offend public morality' due to the nature of the allegations and because the respondent's father suffers from ill-health, which could be adversely affected by any publicity. The Committee rejected the application on the grounds that the nature of the allegations was already in the public domain and that public justice in the context of professional regulation outweighed the private concerns of the respondent regarding his father.
On the second day of the hearing, the respondent made an application to adjourn charges 2 - 5 on the basis that he had already admitted, and received a conditional discharge, for the first charge and would, therefore, not oppose removal from the Register and an undertaking never to re-apply. The respondent also argued that the original decision of the College to register him in July 2013 was flawed because it was unfair to admit him, in awareness of his conditional discharge, apparently for the purpose of taking disciplinary proceedings against him. He also referred to the Crown Prosecution Service's decision not to prosecute him in respect of charge 4.
This application was dismissed by the Disciplinary Committee on the grounds of the gravity of charges 2 - 5 and the fact that the respondent chose to apply to join the Register and had been advised to seek legal advice regarding his conditional discharge beforehand. Furthermore, the Disciplinary Committee heard that there was no error at the time of his registration because the conditional discharge was not a conviction and therefore, under the Veterinary Surgeons Act, there was no option to refuse registration.
The respondent then made a final application to have the case adjourned on the grounds that new documentation he had received the previous day regarding his registration had led his lawyers to conclude that the decision to register him may have been unlawful. However, the Disciplinary Committee said that, in its understanding, the RCVS Registrar had no option but to register Mr Lown. The Disciplinary Committee then dismissed the application on the grounds that any challenge of the validity of registration could and should have been made within the three month time limit for judicial review and that no significant new documentation about Mr Lown's registration had come to light that could reasonably be said to have triggered a judicial review and warrant an adjournment. It also again highlighted the gravity of the charges.
The Disciplinary Committee then heard evidence in relation to charges 2 -5, including that of two officers from North Yorkshire Police who took part in the original investigation, who the Committee found to be credible and reliable witnesses, and, after reviewing the evidence, found that all four charges were proven.
The Committee then considered the appropriate sanction for Mr Lown, and took into account a number of aggravating factors including the risk of injury to animals, premeditated misconduct, sexual misconduct, misconduct sustained or repeated over a period of time and his lack of insight into the offences or his overall conduct.
Professor Noreen Burrows, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "In these circumstances, the Committee has no doubt that the respondent's conduct was of the utmost seriousness. The material found in possession of the respondent and his own conduct in charge 4 involved the abuse of animals and a total lack of respect for their welfare. In the judgement of the Committee each of the charges individually amounts to disgraceful conduct and the charges certainly amount to disgraceful conduct when taken cumulatively."
In order to safeguard animal welfare, maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards of conduct, the Disciplinary Committee directed the Registrar to remove Mr Lown's name from the Register.
The Committee's full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
More on this story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-28524348
Kirk Thompson, a Newcastle-based practitioner, has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after being found guilty of manslaughter, assault and drug possession.
Following a trial at Newcastle Crown Court in April 2014, Mr Thompson - who according to the Guardian had at one point been tipped for the job of Chief Veterinary Officer - was convicted of the manslaughter of David Kochs at Mr Thompson’s flat during a crystal-meth-fuelled 'extreme' sadomasochistic gay sex session. He was also convicted of assault causing actual bodily harm (also on Mr Kochs) and possession of methylamphetamine, a Class A controlled drug, both offences occurring on the same night. Mr Thompson was subsequently sentenced to a total of fifteen years’ imprisonment.
Whilst the RCVS opened a case against Mr Thompson in February 2014, it only received confirmation from the Supreme Court of the final conclusion of his subsequent (and ultimately unsuccessful) appeals against his conviction and sentencing in October 2015. The Disciplinary Committee therefore served a Notice of Inquiry on Mr Thompson in November 2015.
Mr Thompson admitted the convictions but did not attend the hearing, due to his current imprisonment, nor was he represented at it; he also declined the opportunity to attend by video link. After due consideration, the Committee decided that the Notice of Inquiry had been properly served and that it was in the interests of justice to proceed in Mr Thompson’s absence.
The Committee was satisfied that Mr Thompson had been convicted of the three offences listed in the charges and concluded that he was not fit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
Speaking on behalf of the Committee, its chairman Professor Alistair Barr said: “[We are] satisfied that the type and nature of [Mr Thompson’s] criminal conduct falls seriously below the standard expected of a member of the profession. [We have] noted that Mr Thompson recognises the disrepute his actions have brought on the profession ... and consider that [his] conduct is fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon.
“In the circumstances, [we have] concluded that, in the public interest, there is only one proportionate sanction that could be imposed, namely the removal of Mr Thompson’s name from the Register.”
The Committee’s full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
Nominations can be made for three RCVS Honours: the Queen’s Medal, the Golden Jubilee Award and Honorary Associateship.
The Queen’s Medal was introduced in 2013 and is the highest honour that the College can bestow upon a veterinary surgeon in recognition of those who have achieved a highly distinguished career and outstanding achievements. Nominations can be made by any Member of the RCVS in respect of another veterinary surgeon. The 2016 winner of the award was Professor Randolph Richards who was honoured for his contribution to the development of aquaculture in Scotland.
The Golden Jubilee Award was introduced in 2011 to mark the 50th anniversary of the first RCVS training course for veterinary nurses and now recognises those nurses who are taking a leadership role within the profession. The 2016 winner of the award was Louise O’Dwyer who was recognised for her pioneering role within the profession. Nominations can be made by either veterinary nurses or veterinary surgeons in respect of a veterinary nurse.
Nominations can also be made for Honorary Associateship which is eligible for those who, while not veterinary surgeons or nurses, have made a significant impact in the veterinary field. Previous winners have included scientists, farmers, farriers, educationalists and journalists. This year an Honorary Associateship was awarded to Professor David Lane for his support in launching the College’s Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Practice.
Further information about making nominations for each of these awards, including nominations forms, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/honours.
The deadline for nominations is Friday 16 September 2016 and all awards will be bestowed at RCVS Day 2017 in July next year.
Those with questions about making a nomination can contact Peris Dean, Executive Secretary, on p.dean@rcvs.org.uk.
A shift towards a more outcomes-based model of CPD for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses has been under discussion for a number of years and one of its main proponents has been the current RCVS Senior Vice-President Professor Stephen May (pictured right), who chaired the CPD Policy Working Party.
Stephen said: "There has been increasing recognition over a range of different professions that CPD records based on ‘inputs’ alone, for example, measuring the number of hours attending a lecture, do not necessarily prove that any significant learning has taken place or that this learning will be used to improve professional practice.
"By contrast, research has demonstrated that CPD activities focused on outcomes encourage professionals to reflect on what they have learned, how they will apply their learning and how it will improve their practice, which has a positive impact on professionalism and patient health outcomes. Numerous other professions, including human medicine and dentistry, have moved to this model and the veterinary world has been somewhat ‘behind the curve’ as a result.
"However, as with any significant shift in policy, there has been a recognition that we needed to take the profession with us and not force through change. This is why, in March 2017, we launched a pilot scheme for the outcomes-based model with veterinary and veterinary nurse volunteers, including people who, during the initial consultation stage, had voiced some skepticism towards the concept.
"The overall feedback from volunteers was very positive and supportive towards the changes and I look forward, over the coming years, to talking to the professions at large about the benefits of the approach and how to best engage with the model."
In all, around 120 volunteers took part in the pilot, of whom 70% were veterinary surgeons and 30% veterinary nurses. When the pilot finished in October 2018, volunteers provided feedback as part of the evaluation process. Of the 57% of volunteers (n=70) who responded to the survey:
77% said they would be willing to use an outcomes-based CPD model in the future;
41% found it ‘easy’ or ‘very easy’ to implement outcomes-based CPD while only 11% thought it was either ‘difficult’ or ‘very difficult’;
61% thought that the outcomes-based model made CPD more meaningful for them and 25% said it encouraged them to undertake a wider range of CPD activities than previously;
Other feedback included the need for a better CPD recording system and more information and guidance ahead of any future changes.
Following the feedback, particularly around the need for a new approach to CPD recording, it was also recommended to Council that a new online CPD recording system should be introduced. This system will integrate the current disparate systems, such as the Student Experience Log (for vet students), Nursing Progress Log (for student VNs) and the Professional Development Phase (for recent vet graduates), making it a ‘one-stop shop’ professional development recording platform.
Richard Burley, RCVS Chief Technology Officer, said: "We will be building a new platform, consolidating all professional development-related capability for all members, into a single, integrated solution, seamlessly accessible via our ‘My Account’ online portal, and forthcoming mobile app. We have assembled a new, dedicated, software development team to drive this work and more details about this system will be published in coming months."
Linda Prescott-Clements, RCVS Director of Education, added:"Following the approval of the CPD proposals by RCVS Council, a phased roll-out of the new model and the accompanying IT system will take place. This includes recruiting a group of volunteers from the profession later this year to get some initial feedback around the guidance resources and online CPD platform, with members of the profession being voluntarily able to sign up to the new model and IT system from January 2020 onwards.
"Implementation of the new CPD requirement for all members is expected to start in January 2022 but, prior to that, we will be working hard to talk to the profession about why an outcomes-based model is a more effective and meaningful way of undertaking CPD and this will include workshops, webinars and roadshows. Look out for more news on our plans over the coming months."
For more information about the College’s current CPD policy requirement and policy, visit: www.rcvs.org.uk/cpd
The taskforce was established following the EU referendum result on 24 June, with the central purpose of putting the profession in charge of its future by maximising the opportunities and minimising the risks of Brexit.
Almost half of veterinary surgeons registering in the UK qualified from veterinary schools elsewhere in the EU. While the Government issued a statement in mid-July clarifying that as yet there has been no change to the rights and status of EU nationals in the UK or UK nationals in the EU, it is not clear whether this situation will continue once the UK has left the EU.
The Brexit Presidential Taskforce will consider, and proactively engage with, the many possible changes that could shape the future of the UK veterinary profession due to Brexit.
The members of the Taskforce are: the President of the College, Chris Tufnell; the CEO, Nick Stace; the Treasurer, Amanda Boag; Operations Director, Corrie McCann; Junior Vice-President, Stephen May; Acting Registrar, Eleanor Ferguson; Chair of Education, Susan Dawson; Head of Education, Chris Warman; Council member Stuart Reid; Chair of VN Council, Liz Cox; and Director of Strategic Communications, Lizzie Lockett.
The terms of reference include: considering how EU regulations currently impact the regulation of veterinary professionals in the UK, and making recommendations as to which should be maintained; looking at the issue of mutual recognition of veterinary graduates in Europe; considering workforce requirements and the implications of a new system of immigration; understanding the implications for the current RCVS agenda; considering whether a proactive RCVS agenda can influence any new UK legislation; reconsidering the College’s existing international strategy; and studying the financial impact on the College.
It was also agreed that the College should maintain communications with the British Veterinary Association and coordinate approaches where appropriate.
Dr Chris Tufnell, President of the RCVS, said: "Brexit has profound implications for our professions. The Presidential Taskforce is exploring all implications and will develop proposals that will seek to mitigate the risks and maximise the benefits that can flow to the veterinary professions and to animal welfare.
"We are working closely with representative bodies and others so that the veterinary professions have a coordinated and well executed plan in place. We are in discussions with all relevant Government departments, working collaboratively and constructively, ensuring that our voice is heard and our influence is felt."
The next meeting will be held on 15 September, with the third one scheduled for 9 November.
Just over 1,000 veterinary nurses have not yet paid their annual renewal fee of £61 and if this is not received on or before 31 December 2016 then their names will be removed from the Register. Those who have their name removed will not be able to use the postnominal ‘RVN’ and will not be able to carry out medical treatments and minor surgery as defined under Schedule 3 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act (www.rcvs.org.uk/delegation).
In order to restore their name to the Register they will have to pay a restoration fee of £51 in addition to the £61 renewal fee.
The easiest way to pay the fee is to log in to the ‘My Account’ area of the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/login) using the credentials provided to each veterinary nurse by the College’s Registration Department. If these credentials have been lost or misplaced the Registration Department can be contacted on 020 7202 0707 or registration@rcvs.org.uk.
For details about alternative methods of payment visit www.rcvs.org.uk/about-us/fees/how-to-pay or contact the RCVS Finance Team on finance@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0723.
As well as paying the annual renewal fee, veterinary nurses should also confirm their Register and correspondence details, confirm that they comply with the College’s current requirements for continuing professional development and declare any convictions, cautions and/or adverse findings.
The article, which is available open-access, comprises a literature search of both medical and veterinary medical journals for evidence of the effectiveness of input-based and outcomes-based CPD.
Its conclusion is that outcomes-based CPD, which concentrates less on hours logged and more on interactive and reflective learning, is the most effective at improving practice and patient health outcomes.
The paper was originally presented to the RCVS CPD Policy Working Group on 4 December 2015 to inform its discussions. A six-week consultation with the profession was held over the summer asking for their views on the resulting proposals for an outcomes-based approach to CPD.
The proposed model for CPD has four key components: planning, doing, recording and reflecting. While an overall majority of the 3,357 people who responded to the College’s consultation agreed with the proposed changes, certain elements received less support than others. The lowest amount of support was received for the ‘reflection’ component with 35% of respondents disagreeing with it.
With this in mind the RCVS Education Committee and VN Council decided that a pilot of a new outcomes-based approach should be held during 2017 with a group of volunteers, and made this recommendation to RCVS Council. RCVS Council approved this pilot at its meeting on 10 November.
The pilot is expected to be launched in February next year and the College is now looking for volunteers who both support the proposals and those who have a ‘healthy scepticism’ about them. Volunteers will receive help and support throughout the trial and will also be invited to attend an introductory CPD meeting at the College’s offices on 28 February.
To access the article for free, visit the Veterinary Record: http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/179/20/515.full?keytype=ref&ijkey=bwDIVYMY8Vwd0su.
Further information, including the CPD Policy Working Party’s response to the consultation, is available at www.rcvs.org.uk/CPDpilot.
The RCVS stand was designed to look like a veterinary practice, complete with waiting room, consulting room, prep room, operating theatre and RCVS Accredited Practice logos.
The team from the College handed out around 1,500 ‘Find a Vet’ canvas bags containing 'Find a Vet' and Practice Standards Scheme leaflets and merchandise, and persuaded over 200 people to take part in special ‘Find a Vet’ and PSS-themed games and competitions.
These included having to find a veterinary surgeon or nurse around the showground (volunteers from RCVS Council and VN Council, including RCVS President Chris Tufnell and VN Council Chair Liz Cox, along with David Catlow, Neil Smith, his dog, Fire, Lucy Bellwood and Amber Richards).
The College reports that there was also a continual stream of children eager to pretend to be veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses for the day and have a go at the on-stand ‘animal examination’ and ‘animal surgery’ activities. All this gave rise to plenty of photo opportunities, which parents and competition entrants were encouraged to share on social media, to help spread the word about the College’s activities.
Ian Holloway, RCVS Head of Communications said: "This was the first time the RCVS had been to such a large-scale and high-profile public event, and it provided a superb opportunity to explain to animal owners who we are and how we can help them.
"We had a great deal of interest in our new Find a Vet service, and people also seemed reassured that there was a scheme in place to accredit veterinary practices around the country. Having attended both the London Pet Show and BBC Countryfile Live this year, we now plan to increase the number of animal owner events we attend next year, to further raise public awareness of the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme and our Find a Vet service."
For more pictures of the event, see: https://flic.kr/s/aHskEQkDPc
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended two veterinary surgeons from the Register after finding them guilty of lying to clients and the College about the circumstances of a castration procedure which led to the death of a dog.
The Committee suspended Mr Mpho Donald Lesolle and Mr Georgi Cheshmedzhiev from the Register for four and two months respectively, following surgery undertaken on Benson, a two-year-old male Labradoodle belonging to Mr and Mrs Grayson.
During the proceedings, the Committee heard that, on 6 August 2013, Mr and Mrs Grayson brought Benson to the Swinfen Veterinary Centre in Stafford, where Mr Lesolle is the practice principal and Mr Cheshmedzhiev was his assistant, for the operation which was undertaken by Mr Cheshmedzhiev. Mr Lesolle did not directly supervise the procedure telling the Committee that he was confident that his colleague could carry out the castration, having permitted him to do so on previous occasions.
The Committee heard that, after the operation, a nursing assistant, Ms Bell, had noticed that there was blood on the bedding and that Benson had a swollen scrotum. Mr Lesolle then performed a scrotal ablation on Benson, who was discharged later that day.
However, on the morning of 8 August 2013, Mrs Grayson discovered that Benson had died during the night. An independent post-mortem concluded that he had probably died of intra-abdominal bleeding which caused circulatory collapse. Mr and Mrs Grayson raised a concern with the RCVS in September 2013.
The charge against Mr Lesolle relates to his actions following the operations and during the investigation. The four parts of the charge were that he failed to be sufficiently open with Mr and Mrs Grayson on the circumstances of Benson’s surgery; that, in September 2013, he wrote to the College indicating that he had in fact performed the castration and failing to state that there had been two operations; that, on 23 January 2014, he informed Pam Mosedale, a Veterinary Investigator employed by the College, that he had carried out both procedures; and that, on the same day, he also encouraged his veterinary nursing assistant Ms Bell to be dishonest with the College’s investigators.
Mr Lesolle, who was present at the hearing, admitted all parts of the charge against him. He told the Committee that he decided to take responsibility for Mr Cheshmedzhiev’s operation out of a desire to protect his colleague whom he regarded as vulnerable and lacking in self-confidence. He also accepted that he had encouraged Ms Bell to lie during her interview. He told the Committee that he had persisted with the deceit until 15 January 2015, when he gave a full account of what had occurred.
The three parts of the charge against Mr Cheshmedzhiev, who was not in attendance or represented at the hearing, were that in a letter to the College sent in September 2013, he indicated that he had not undertaken the castration procedure on Benson; that on 23 January 2014 he had denied carrying out the operation while being interviewed by Pam Mosedale; and that, on 19 June 2014, while being interviewed by a solicitor instructed by the College, he said that Mr Lesolle had carried out both procedures.
The Committee found the charge against Mr Lesolle amounted to serious professional misconduct, falling far short of what is expected of a professional. The Committee highlighted the protracted nature of his deceit and the fact that he encouraged another member of staff to participate in it. However, it did accept that his motivation was to protect Mr Cheshmedzhiev.
In deciding on the sanction for Mr Lesolle, the Committee considered the aggravating and mitigating factors. Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Having taken the calculated decision to deceive the College as to what had occurred, he abused his position of responsibility to obtain support for his deceit by involving a junior employee, without any proper consideration of the effect of that decision upon her. Instead he continued with the deceit until he was presented with incontrovertible evidence that he had not carried out both procedures on the dog. In the Committee’s view he showed a wilful disregard for the College’s investigatory process.”
However, in mitigation, it also accepted that he was protecting a colleague and that there was no financial gain. It also considered his personal circumstances, the fact that he is sole principal of a small mixed practice which provides his sole source of income and that the rented accommodation also provides a home for his wife and two children. Taking all factors into account, the Committee imposed a sanction upon Mr Lesolle of four months’ suspension from the Register.
In regards to Mr Cheshmedzhiev, the Committee did not find the part of his charge relating to the letter sent in September 2013 to be proven but, in respect of the other two parts of his charge, found that his conduct fell far short of what is expected of a professional. It highlighted his willing participation in the deceit over a protracted period and his failure to take responsibility for his own involvement in the operation on Benson.
In deciding the sanction, the Committee said that the fact that Mr Cheshmedzhiev had lied to the College’s investigators on two occasions and did not admit that he had carried out the castration and apologise for his actions until February 2015, after he had returned to his native Bulgaria, was an aggravating factor.
Ian Green added: “The Committee accepts that he allowed himself to be persuaded by Mr Lesolle to provide a dishonest account of what had taken place to the College’s investigator Mrs Mosedale, and solicitor, Mr Hudson. It also accepts that he has been described by Mr Lesolle as a vulnerable person, lacking in self-confidence in his ability to practise as a veterinary surgeon in the United Kingdom.
“Nevertheless, Mr Cheshmedzhiev accepted the obligations contained in the Code of Professional Conduct when he registered as an MRCVS, which included an obligation to cooperate honestly with the College’s investigatory process. It has also noted that he has expressed a present intention not to work in or visit the United Kingdom again.”
Taking into account all factors, the Committee decided the appropriate sanction was to suspend him from the Register for two months.
In his talk, 'Digital Veterinary Practice', Adam presents an exciting and compelling vision as to how technology will transform the profession and enable veterinary surgeons to offer better care to more patients.
His talk begins with an interesting look at how technological change has gathered pace in recent years, before considering some of the emerging technologies that could be applied to veterinary practice.
In particular, he talked about the so-called 'Internet of things': the way more and more 'things' other than computers are connected to the Internet.
There are now about 9bn 'things' connected to the internet, by 2020 there are expected to be 50bn. Adam predicted that more and more of them are going to be worn by animals: to measure reproductive health in farm animals; to track performance in equines; and to monitor behaviour and activity in companion animals.
Adam discussed how there is already a smart litter box which measures an animal’s habits, an oral pill camera that can take 360 degree internal photos, 3D printed drugs and digitised microscopy. By uniting these technologies with increasingly accurate virtual reality technology, he said, long-distance examinations could become a real possibility.
In relation to the role of the RCVS, Adam explored how the profession could be proactive in engaging with these technologies, such as by: using regulation as a mechanism to attract 'disruptors' to work alongside the profession; identifying areas of retraining and creating targeted learning opportunities; fostering an entrepreneurial mindset; creating an early-adopter network of practices to foster initial collaboration; and framing industry challenges as targeted problems whose solutions can be crowd-sourced.
The Disciplinary Committee considered four charges against Dr Strokowska. The first was that, whilst registered in the 'Practising Outside the United Kingdom' category of the Register of Veterinary Surgeons maintained by the RCVS, she practised as a veterinary surgeon in the counties of Somerset, Shropshire, London, Lancashire and Norfolk between July 2016 and August 2017 when she was not registered as UK-practising. The charges were that her conduct in relation to this was dishonest and misleading to her employer and/or clients.
The second charge was that, between October 2016 and July 2017, Dr Strokowska made posts on social media which included photographs of and comments about animals being treated at the practices where she worked, without the consent of the owners or the practices.
The third charge was that, between January 2017 and March 2017, Dr Strokowska made posts on social media which included photographs, videos and comments about animals being treated at Goddards Veterinary Hospital in Wanstead, without the consent of the treating and/or operating veterinary surgeon.
The fourth charge was that, between July 2017 and September 2017, Dr Strokowska made representations to the practice principal of Barn Lodge, in Lancashire, and/or a student vet working at the practice that she had gained consent for photographs and social media posts when she had not, and that her conduct was dishonest and misleading.
At the outset of the hearing, the Dr Strokowska admitted to having practised as a veterinary surgeon in the UK when she was registered as practising outside the UK, but disputed that she had been dishonest or misleading with regards to this.
She also admitted to the entirety of the second charge and part of the third, but, under the latter charge, denied that she had, without consent, taken a video of an animal being operated on by a veterinary colleague.
Finally, she admitted to dishonest and misleading conduct with regard to part of the fourth charge, but denied that, in July 2017, she informed the practice principal that she had been told that she would be allowed to take photographs at Barn Lodge and post these on social media, when she had not been so told.
The Disciplinary Committee went on to consider the facts of the case for each of the charges that remained in issue.
Having considered all of the evidence, the Committee accepted that she did not have her registration status with the RCVS in her mind while she was working in the UK during the period in question. Accordingly, the Committee did not find her to have been dishonest.
With regards to the third charge the Committee considered the issue of whether the video in question had been posted "without the consent of the treating and/or operating veterinary surgeon". After examining the relevant evidence (which included the video in question) the Committee determined that the evidence did not support the facts charged and thus that charge three was not proved.
With regards to the fourth charge, Strokowska denied that her conduct in relation to informing the principal that she had been told that she would be allowed to take photographs and post these on social media was dishonest or misleading, on the basis that she believed she had permission to take and post photographs on social media. The Committee was not able to be sure as to how she sought this consent and the response provided and so the charge was found not proved.
The Committee then went on to consider whether the charges that were admitted amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee found that it was the respondent’s responsibility to ensure that her registration status was appropriate at the time she was doing locum work in the UK. However she had provided her RCVS registration number to all the practises she had worked for and in the view of the committee there was no intention to deceive anyone. In the judgement of the Committee, her conduct was not sufficiently grave so as to constitute serious professional misconduct.
The Committee, in its judgement, concluded that her conduct in relation to the second charge did fall far short of the behaviour to be expected of a member of the veterinary profession, and amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee considered that all members of the profession are obliged to ensure that they comply with the provisions of the Code of Professional Conduct, and the supporting guidance, in relation to the use of the internet and social media.
Unauthorised posting of photographs of animals being treated by a veterinary surgeon on social media may well cause distress to the owners, and damage to the reputation of the profession as a whole, and to the reputation of individual practices.
The aspect of the third charge admitted by the respondent involved posting a photograph with accompanying text of a dog without the consent of the treating and/or operating veterinary surgeon. The Committee considered that this was, indeed, a matter of professional discourtesy, but did not consider that it amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The respondent admitted the fourth charge and admitted that her conduct was dishonest and misleading. The Committee, in its judgement, considered that by choosing to lie in response to a genuine professional enquiry about her conduct, her behaviour fell far short of that to be expected from a member of the veterinary profession, and constituted serious professional misconduct.
The Committee next considered what, if any, sanction to impose.
In mitigation the Committee considered that the postings were an attempt to promote the health and welfare of animals; the lack of risk of harm or actual harm to an animal or human; no apparent financial gain from her actions; her youth and inexperience at the time of the misconduct; her open and frank admissions at an early stage; her subsequent efforts to avoid repetition; the lapse of time since the incident; and her demonstration of insight into the effects of her postings on some owners.
The Committee considered the available sanctions in order starting with no further action. The Committee did not consider that this was appropriate where the serious professional misconduct found in this case involved dishonesty, even given the mitigating factors relating to that as outlined above, nor in view of the repeated nature of the social media posts without owner consent.
The Committee determined that a reprimand and warning as to future conduct was the appropriate sanction in the circumstances of this case.
Dr Strokowska was reprimanded for her serious professional misconduct in relation to her admitted failure to obtain necessary consent for posts on social media and her dishonesty in communication.
She was warned that she should in future be fully aware of, and comply with, the provisions of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance, in particular as it relates to the use of social media, including the need to ensure that she has obtained all the necessary consents from all relevant parties.
The RCVS has advised that veterinary surgeons should delegate Schedule 3 work to veterinary nurse students only during students' training, following a series of queries from employers about such students locuming.
Veterinary surgeons have dispensations under Schedule 3 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act to delegate to student veterinary nurses in the course of their training, so that students can learn how to give medical treatments to animals.
Crucially, these dispensations apply only when the student is working as a student in their approved training practice or on a placement organised by their university, and is under the supervision of qualified staff.
These dispensations do not apply to any extra-curricula activity so, if working as locums, they are legally classified as unqualified lay staff
The RCVS is concerned that locum agencies do not always appear to know this and are placing locums in their capacity as students, or even "senior students." This has the potential to mislead employers and the students concerned, and result in illegal practice.
Liz Branscombe, Chairman of the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council said: "We know that student VNs, especially those on university courses, often undertake locum work to supplement their earnings. However, beyond the training practice which employs them, or in a placement organised by their university, they can only carry out tasks that may be expected of an unqualified staff member, and cannot legally undertake Schedule 3 work."
Practices may check the details of a student VN directly with the RCVS or with the student's college. If you notice an agency promoting student VN locums, please contact the RCVS so that we can provide guidance.
A total of 8,234 votes were cast in this year’s election, a turnout of 25.5%. The College says the previous highest turnout recorded this century was 22.8%, and it thinks this year's result may even be an all-time record.
The full results, in order of number of votes, are:
Niall Connell – 3,766 votes (re-elected)
Linda Belton – 3,581 votes (elected)
Jo Dyer – 3,146 votes (re-elected)
John Innes – 2,716 votes
Kate Richards – 2,283 votes
Tim Greet – 2,280 votes
Peter Robinson – 1,791 votes
John Davies – 507 votes
Tom Lonsdale – 422 votes
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for the election, said: "Congratulations to Niall and Jo for being re-elected to Council and congratulations also to Linda who we look forward to welcoming to Council at this year’s Royal College Day on Friday 12 July. I would also like to thank Kate, Tim and Peter for their contributions during their time on Council and give my commiserations to them and the other candidates who were unsuccessful this year.
"I was delighted to see that, this year, we had over a quarter of those eligible to vote doing so which means both a record number of votes and a record turnout – it seems this was assisted by our email reminders which, each time they were sent out, lead to a significant boost in uptake.
"However, we will not rest on our laurels and will continue to think about how we can further improve engagement in the election process and turnout for subsequent years."
The results of the election will be declared formally at this year’s Royal College Day – the College’s Annual General Meeting and awards ceremony – which takes place at the Royal Institute of British Architects on Friday 12 July 2019 where the successful candidates will also start their new four-year terms.
No election to Veterinary Nursing Council was held this year due to the fact that there were only two candidates – Liz Cox and Jane Davidson – standing for the two elected places. Both Liz and Jane will take up their three-year terms at Royal College Day.