View all veterinary jobs
Ms Strangeway faced eight charges against her.
The first five charges alleged that Ms Strangeway falsely claimed on hospitalisation records that she had attended the practice where she was employed to monitor hospitalised animals overnight, when she had not in fact done so.
In two of the cases Ms Strangeway also recorded on the form that she had provided the prescribed medication.
The sixth charge was that she had held herself out and practised as a registered veterinary nurse, despite not being on the RCVS Register at the time.
The remaining two charges related to the fact that her conduct as described in the previous charges was dishonest, misleading and potentially detrimental to animal welfare.
The Committee found all factual allegations proven by way of the respondent’s admissions and witness evidence, which included relevant CCTV footage and alarm data.
The Committee also found that the respondent’s conduct did amount to serious professional misconduct based on her dishonesty and the fact the conduct was sustained and repeated and created a risk to animal health and welfare.
The Committee then considered aggravating factors, including that there was a risk of injury to animals, the sustained nature of the misconduct, that there was actual or potential financial gain, that there was an abuse of a position of trust and responsibility, and that she had shown a wilful disregard of the RCVS and the systems regulating the veterinary nursing profession.
In mitigation, the Committee considered that there had been no actual harm to animals, that admissions to the allegations had been made at an early stage, that the respondent had displayed both remorse and insight regarding her conduct, including apologising to the practice, that she was of previously good character, and that she was ordinarily a good veterinary nurse.
Ms Cerys Jones, speaking on behalf of the Committee, 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, the Committee has decided that, in this case, the respondent’s misconduct is so serious that removal from the Register is the only means of protecting animals and the wider public interest.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The Disciplinary Committee took the unusual step of granting an application by the respondent for anonymity, after seeing evidence of a real and immediate threat to the individual’s security if their details were made public.
For the purposes of the hearing, the respondent was therefore referred to as 'X'.
The Committee heard that the individual pleaded guilty in court in 2020 to intentionally and knowingly attempting to communicate with a person under 16 years for the purposes of sexual gratification.
Following this they were sentenced to a two-year probation order, were ordered to register on the Sexual Offences Register for five years; and were made subject to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order for five years.
At the outset of the hearing the individual admitted to all the charges against them and the Committee also noted that there was a certified copy of the conviction available.
The Committee then considered whether the conviction amounted to serious professional misconduct. In considering this, it set out the aggravating factors surrounding the case, these being that there was the risk of actual harm to a minor, that the misconduct was premeditated as the respondent had sent a number of messages via a number of online platforms over several days, that the individual displayed predatory behaviour including sending pictures and making comments of a sexual nature, and that it involved what the respondent believed to be a vulnerable individual, namely a 15-year-old child.
In mitigation, the Committee considered that there had been no actual harm caused to a human or animal in light of the fact that the 15-year-old child, who the respondent believed they were communicating with, was not real. It also took into account that the conduct related to a single isolated incident and that the individual had made open and frank admissions at an early stage.
Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was satisfied that the sentence imposed on X, which included X being subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order until 2025, resulted in the profession of veterinary nurses being brought into disrepute and, in the Committee’s judgement, public confidence in the profession would be undermined if the Committee did not find that the conviction rendered X unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse.”
In considering the individual’s sanction, the Committee heard from a character witness who said that the respondent’s actions were out of character, that they had a previously long and unblemished career, that they had made full admissions and demonstrated insight, and that they had a low risk of reoffending in the future.
Cerys said: “The Committee accepted that X had been an excellent veterinary nurse and that X’s criminal conduct did not relate to X’s practice as a veterinary nurse. However, in the Committee’s judgement, the aggravating factors outweighed the considerable mitigating factors in this case.”
She added: “The Committee decided that a suspension order was not the appropriate sanction for such a serious offence because it did not reflect the gravity of X’s conduct. In the Committee’s judgement, the wider public interest, that is the maintenance of the reputation of the profession and the College as a regulator, required a sanction of removal from the Register. The Committee considered that X had much mitigation and was clearly a dedicated veterinary nurse but the reputation of the profession was more important than the interests of X.
“Further, the Committee noted that in circumstances where X’s probation order expired in 2022, and where the ancillary orders, a Sexual Harm Prevention Order and a requirement to register on the Sexual Offences Register did not expire until 2025; the only proportionate sanction was to direct the Registrar to remove X’s name from the Register of Veterinary Nurses.”
The full findings for the case can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Dr Corsi consulted with Kika's owners about the management of her pregnancy at the end of November 2017, finding at least 4 puppies on an x-ray taken at the time.
The first of five charges against Dr Corsi was that on the 14th December, after being advised by Kika's owners that the dog had produced two live puppies and one dead puppy the previous night, she failed to advise them that Kika needed an immediate veterinary examination.
The second charge was that, having been telephoned for a second time by the owner, she still failed to advise the owners that Kika required an immediate veterinary examination.
The third charge was that, following an examination of Kika that afternoon, and having ascertained that Kika required a caesarean section to remove one undelivered puppy, Dr Corsi failed to perform the caesarean section that day and advised the owner that Kika could undergo the caesarean section (at the practice, performed by her) the next day (or words to the effect).
The charge also stated that she failed to advise the owner that Kika’s health and welfare required the caesarean section to be performed that day; and that she failed to advise them that, if she or another veterinary surgeon at the practice could not perform the surgery that day, Kika needed to be referred to the out-of-hours clinic so that the caesarean section could take place on the 14th December.
The fourth charge was that Dr Corsi failed to recognise that Kika’s health and welfare required a caesarean section to be performed on 14th December.
The fifth charge was that, on 16th December 2017, having been telephoned by the owner at about 5pm and having been informed that Kika was weak and had not been eating post-operatively, Dr Corsi failed to advise the owner that Kika should be presented urgently for a veterinary examination.
The Disciplinary Committee considered the facts of the case and heard evidence from a number of witnesses including the owners of Kika and Dr Corsi, and from Mr Maltman MRCVS who was called as an expert witness on behalf of the College and Mr Chitty, who was called as an expert witness on behalf of Dr Corsi.
Having considered all of the evidence, the Committee found all aspects of the first and second charges proven in their entirety.
The Committee found the majority of the third charge not proved, with the exception of the fact that it found that Dr Corsi did advise the owner that she could undertake the Caesarean section on 15 December 2017.
In light of the Committee’s findings in respect of the aspects of charge three that were not proved, charge four was also found not proved.
Finally, the Committee considered that charge five was found not proved.
The Committee then went on to consider whether the charges that were found proven amounted to serious professional misconduct either individually and/or cumulatively.
Committee Chair Cerys Jones said: "In light of the evidence of both parties’ experts, the Committee was of the view that there was a risk of harm or injury resulting from Dr Corsi’s failure - the Committee decided that this was an aggravating factor.
"However, the Committee took into account that, at the time of both calls, Dr Corsi had a rationale for her decision, that she asked appropriate questions and received answers which led her to make what she considered to be a reasoned assessment.
"She had also made arrangements in both calls to be kept updated either at a pre-arranged time or sooner if Kika’s condition changed. On this basis, the Committee was satisfied that, while this was an error of judgement, it did not fall so far short of what was expected as to amount to disgraceful conduct."
Therefore, the Committee decided that while Dr Corsi’s conduct in Charges 1 and 2 demonstrated a departure from professional standards, the falling short was not so grave as to amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The full decision can be read here: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/
The College is currently collaborating with VetLed, a leading provider of Human Factors skills training for veterinary professionals and the British Veterinary Nursing Association (BVNA), to launch the “VetLed Safe to Speak Up campaign” on the 2nd May.
The campaign aims to empower all members of the veterinary team to talk openly about their mistakes, concerns and new ideas by raising awareness of the importance of psychological safety.
The College says psychological safety is the belief that there won’t be negative repercussions as a result of vocalising thoughts, ideas or concerns, and is a beneficial value for practices to adopt.
Safe to Speak Up will include a social media campaign that raises awareness of the benefits of psychological safety and provides advice for how workplaces and individuals can apply psychological safety in their practice.
The Safe to Speak Up campaign will also feature a day of interactive workshops focussed on psychological safety on the 11th May.
The day will include free-to-attend sessions from VetLed that will explain what psychological safety is and how it can be created and maintained in practice.
Later, there will be four Veterinary Nurse Think Tanks, 90-minute interactive learning and discussion sessions that cover key Human Factor themes:
Lisa Quigley, Mind Matters Initiative Manager, said: “Every single vet nurse should feel comfortable and psychologically supported in their role, and we hope that the training and awareness campaigns that we are running over the upcoming year will ensure that more VNs will feel empowered to talk about their mental health and wellbeing at work.”
Alex Taylor, BVNA President, said: “The BVNA are so pleased to be part of the Civility Training, Think Tanks, and Safe to Speak Up Campaign, especially as these fall in line with our current theme of 'building resilience'.
"We recognise how important the mental health of veterinary nurses is, not just for their own wellbeing, but for the good of the workforce too.”
For more information about the MMI training sessions or to book a place on our Civility Training https://www.vetmindmatters.org/training/
The programme, which will look at the achievements and contributions of people of African and Afro-Caribbean descent, will see Dr Greene being interviewed by presenter Alex Beresford alongside a number of other prominent black Britons including athlete and broadcaster Colin Jackson, publisher and author Margaret Busby, Mayor of Bristol Marvin Rees, and nurse and academic Dame Elizabeth Anionwu.
Mandisa said: “I am immensely honoured to be the first Black President of the RCVS and to use this opportunity to speak to the black community, and indeed all communities, about my love of veterinary science and the importance of the work we do in safeguarding animal health and welfare and wider public health.
"I am a great believer in the phrase ‘if you see it, you can be it’ and I hope that my various talks this month and, particularly the upcoming ITV documentary, will help people recognise that veterinary professionals can come from a diverse range of backgrounds and that, provided they have the drive and the ambition, there should be no barriers to them meeting their dreams."
The College is seeking nominations this year for all six of its awards, all of which will be presented to the successful nominees at Royal College Day 2020, which will take place at 1 Great George Street in July 2020. These awards are:
The Queen’s Medal: the highest honour that can be bestowed upon a veterinary surgeon for a highly distinguished career with sustained and outstanding achievements throughout.
The Veterinary Nursing Golden Jubilee Award: for veterinary nurses who have had a sustained and distinguished career, who can demonstrate a leadership role within the profession and who can act as an ambassador for the value of veterinary nurses and their work.
RCVS International Award: for vets, vet nurses or laypeople who work internationally in making an outstanding contribution to, for example, raising veterinary standards, veterinary education and improving animal health and welfare.
RCVS Impact Award: for vets or vet nurses who have undertaken a project or initiative that has a significant impact on the profession at large, animal health or welfare, or public health. Such impact could have been made through any field of veterinary endeavour, including clinical practice, research, education or veterinary politics.
RCVS Inspiration Award: for vets or vet nurses at any stage of their career who have demonstrated the ability to inspire and enthuse others consistently throughout. It is open to those who have inspired and motivated individuals anywhere within the profession and recognises those who have gone ‘above and beyond’ what may normally be expected from a professional colleague.
Honorary Associateship: conferred on a small number of laypeople each year, in recognition of their special contribution to the veterinary sphere. It recognises the full range of individuals who contribute to the veterinary and animal health sector including scientists, lecturers, journalists, charity-workers, farriers, farmers and those involved in the commercial field.
Niall Connell, RCVS President for 2019-20, said: "2019 was particularly fruitful in terms of the number of nominations that we received for some of these awards, including the Queen’s Medal and the Impact and Inspiration Awards. In fact, those of us who had to compile the shortlist really struggled because of the sheer quality of the nominations we received and the people who were nominated.
"We hope that this will be repeated this year, and I would ask the profession to give some extra thought to making a nomination for Honorary Associateship, an award which is conferred on laypeople who are going above-and-beyond for animal welfare and the veterinary professions.
"In my veterinary career I have met many of these people: the biochemistry lecturers at vet school who gave me a passion for the science behind clinical veterinary medicine; the receptionists who were experts at talking to clients with empathy and kindness, often during distressing situations; and the volunteers who give up their precious free time to help with the smooth running of our PDSA hospital.
"I would urge everyone to have a think about who might be suitable for any of these awards, to find out more about making a nomination on the RCVS website."
To make a nomination, visit www.rcvs.org.uk/honours and click on the link for the specific award.
Applications can be made either through an online application form or by downloading a PDF application form and emailing or posting it to the RCVS.
The deadline for nominations is Friday 10 January 2020.
For an informal talk about the awards and how to make a nomination you can contact Susie Tomlin, Executive Secretary, on s.tomlin@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0761.
Photo: Dr Abdul-Jalil Mohammadzai, one of the recipients of the 2019 RCVS International Award, with the then RCVS President Amanda Boag
Ms Bowler faced four sets of charges, each of which contained sub-charges, summarised as follows:
Despite being served with the Notice of Inquiry, Ms Bowler decided not to attend the hearing due to ill-health but was represented by a counsel and solicitors.
The Committee did not find that Ms Bowler was medically unfit to attend on the basis of the medical evidence before it.
The Committee also concluded that it was in the public interest and interests of Ms Bowler to proceed with the hearing in her absence so that it could be concluded in a timely manner.
Ms Bowler’s counsel applied for parts of the hearing to be heard in private on health grounds, which was approved by the Committee.
It was also determined that any parts in the Committee’s decision or hearing that referred to Ms Bowler’s health would be redacted.
At the outset of the hearing, Ms Bowler’s counsel made admissions to five of the sub-charges which the Committee therefore found proven.
She also made some partial admissions in relations to a further 11 sub-charges.
After hearing a wide range of evidence, both written and oral, from Ms Bowler, the College, from clients and from an expert witness, the Committee found all charges proved except for four sub-charges.
On deciding whether the proved charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee took the following aggravating factors into account.
In mitigation:
In all, the Committee decided that the seriousness of the misconduct meant that a sanction was necessary to meet the public interest.
When deciding on whether to issue a reprimand with or without a warning, the Committee once again decided that the misconduct was too serious to allow for this.
It also decided that a reprimand and/or warning was not sufficient to protect animals and the wider public interest.
It then went onto consider whether a sanction of ‘suspension’ was sufficient but noted that it did not have enough evidence to show that Ms Bowler had shown significant insight to continue to practise unrestricted in the future.
The Committee eventually concluded that Ms Bowler’s conduct was incompatible with remaining on the Register.
Neil Slater, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee decided that the broad range of Ms Bowler’s misconduct which had spanned three years and eight months and involving injury or risk of injury to 18 animals, was incompatible with remaining on the Register and the public interest required removal from the Register even when all of Ms Bowler’s mitigation was taken into account.
“The Committee decided that it did not have sufficient evidence overall on Ms Bowler’s insight, current competence and future risk to persuade it that the lesser sanction of suspension was appropriate in this case.
“Although Ms Bowler had shown some insight, the Committee decided that she would need to have provided detailed evidence about her current practice before it could decide that she no longer represented a risk to animals in the future.
“The Committee therefore concluded that ‘removal from the Register’ was the appropriate and proportionate sanction because there had been a serious departure from professional standards, a reckless disregard for professional standards, multiple cases involving harm or risk of harm to animals and because, in Ms Bowler’s absence, it had been difficult to unravel whether she had an attitudinal problem.
“These were all factors in the Disciplinary Committee Sanctions Guidance that indicated that a sanction of removal was the appropriate sanction and, in the Committee’s decision, removal from the Register was the only sanction which would meet the public interest.
"It concluded that a lesser sanction would undermine public confidence in the profession and in the regulatory process.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
The charge against Ms Law was that in November 2017, having performed surgery on Kiwi, a German Shepherd/Wolfhound-cross dog, to address gastric dilation volvulus (GDV), she failed to obtain informed consent to the entirety of the surgical process and management, including post-operative aftercare.
The charge also stated that she failed to provide adequate analgesia to Kiwi before, during or after the surgery, failed to provide appropriate and adequate fluid therapy to Kiwi, failed to offer an appropriate and adequate post-operative care plan and/or post-operative transfer for Kiwi to another practice and failed to inform the owners that there would be nobody present at the practice to provide post-operative monitoring and aftercare for Kiwi for approximately seven hours during the night.
Finally the charge stated that Ms Law allowed Kiwi to remain at the practice overnight from 12:30am to 07:45am without adequate monitoring or post-operative aftercare.
Ms Law admitted some of the charges against her, including that she had failed to obtain informed consent, failed to offer an appropriate and/or adequate post-operative care plan, failed to inform the owners that there would be nobody present at the practice and allowed Kiwi to remain at the practice overnight without adequate monitoring and/or post-operative aftercare. However, she denied that she failed to provide adequate analgesia or fluid therapy to Kiwi.
The Committee found all of the charges proved, with the exception of failing to provide adequate analgesia during the perioperative period.
Having considered the facts, the Committee then moved on to consider whether the admitted and proven charges against Ms Law amounted to serious professional misconduct, taking into account any aggravating and mitigating factors. The aggravating features were that, as a result of Ms Law’s failures in relation to analgesia and fluid therapy, there was either actual injury to Kiwi, or a risk of such injury.
In mitigation, the Committee considered that she promptly and accurately diagnosed GDV, and proceeded to perform the necessary emergency surgery. The Committee considered that the charges related to a single isolated incident and that Ms Law has had an unblemished career to date. They also noted that Ms Law had made open and frank admissions as to the majority of the charges.
The Committee found that the conduct of Ms Law set out in the majority of the charges did not amount to serious professional misconduct. However, in the judgement of the Committee, Ms Law’s conduct in allowing Kiwi to remain at the practice overnight without adequate monitoring or post-operative aftercare did amount to serious professional misconduct.
Jane Downes, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: "The Committee considers that the respondent (Ms Law) has insight into the serious mistake that she made in failing to ensure that Kiwi was checked or monitored overnight. The Committee has found that this was a single isolated incident, which involved a serious lapse of clinical judgement, which will probably stay in the mind of the respondent for the rest of her career.
"The respondent has been in practice for some nine years now, and apart from this incident, there is no suggestion that the respondent has fallen short of the standards expected of her on any other occasion. The Committee does not consider that there is a risk that the respondent is likely to leave an animal overnight after major surgery again, without ensuring that it is checked during that time, and, as such, the Committee considers that there is no future risk to the welfare of animals so far as the respondent is concerned."
The Committee considered that the finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect in this case is too serious for no further action to be taken, having regard to the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct.
The Committee therefore concluded that the appropriate sanction in this case was to issue a reprimand to Ms Law, in relation to the finding of serious professional misconduct.
Jane Downes added: "The Committee considers that this sanction, coupled with the findings of fact and disgraceful conduct made against the respondent, is sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards of conduct. The Committee does not consider it necessary to issue a warning to the respondent about her future conduct, on the basis that the Committee has concluded that there is no risk of repetition."
There were three charges against Ms Creese, all pertaining to the period between July 2016 and November 2017.
The first charge was that she failed to ensure that there were adequate systems and processes in place for out-of-hours’ care for in-patients.
The second charge was that she publicised that the practice had "24 hour care provided by our vets at our practice" and/or "Care 24/7 for your pets" on its website, which suggested that staff were present at the practice 24 hours a day when they were not and as such publicity was dishonest and/or misleading.
The third charge against Ms Creese was that she failed to ensure that Kiwi's owners were informed about arrangements at the practice for out-of-hours’ care for in-patients.
At the outset of the hearing, Ms Creese denied all the charges against her.
After hearing evidence from relevant witnesses, the Committee considered that the practice did have in place systems and processes for out-of-hours care for in-patients and that there was no evidence of repeated or ignored failures of these systems and processes. The Committee therefore found the charges against Ms Creese not proved and all three were dismissed.
The Committee had found Dr Elefterescu guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to a number of charges which covered issues such as dishonesty, poor record-keeping, and failure to carry out adequate clinical examinations.
The full charges and findings of the RCVS Disciplinary Committee can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held the appeal hearing in October last year with three Justices of the Supreme Court - Lord Kerr, Lord Carnwath and Lord Kitchin – comprising the Board.
The basis of the appeal to the Privy Council was that the Committee’s findings on the facts of the case were flawed, with his counsel saying that Dr Elefterescu 'strenuously disputes the findings by the Committee of his dishonesty and lack of professional competence and submits that there is no adequate basis for them in the evidence’.
His counsel also told the Board that the Disciplinary Committee’s sanction failed to take into account mitigating factors and that the decision to remove Dr Elefterescu from the Register was disproportionate.
In relation to the appeal against the Disciplinary Committee’s findings on the facts, the Board was not persuaded by any of the arguments put forward on behalf of Dr Elefterescu. These arguments included that the RCVS had failed to call relevant witnesses and had failed to make Dr Elefterescu aware of the significance of some evidential matters, disclosed to him.
In respect of the sanction, the Board was also unpersuaded by the arguments put forward by Dr Elefterescu’s counsel, namely that it was too harsh in its assessment of aggravating factors, did not give adequate weight to mitigating factors, and that it failed to distinguish lack of competence from misconduct.
In its judgment on the arguments put forward by Dr Elefterescu’s counsel, the Board said: "It is the opinion of the Board that these criticisms are not well founded. The Committee considered with care Dr Elefterescu’s proven and admitted conduct in relation to each of the charges and whether it fell below or far below the standard to be expected. It is to be noted in this regard that a number of the charges which were either admitted or upheld were not the subject of any challenge on this appeal.
"Overall, the Committee found that Dr Elefterescu’s clinical failures were very serious, involved failures in the basics of animal care, resulted in animal suffering and involved widespread breaches of the respondent’s [RCVS] code of professional conduct. It also expressed particular concern about its findings of dishonesty, and rightly so. That conduct was, in its view, ‘at the top end’ of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. What is more, Dr Elefterescu had a lack of insight into his failings and a wholly unjustified confidence in his abilities which constituted an ongoing risk to animal welfare."
"These were findings which the Committee was clearly entitled to make and, in the light of them, the Board is firmly of the view that the decision of the Committee to direct the removal of Dr Elefterescu’s name from the Register cannot be impeached. The Board rejects the criticisms made of the Committee’s reasoning and the conclusions to which it came. The direction that Dr Elefterescu’s name must be removed from the Register was appropriate and proportionate."
The Judicial Committee’s full findings can be found at www.jcpc.uk/cases/docs/jcpc-2018-0060-judgment.pdf.
Mr Kane was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, suspended for 18 months in September 2024.
He was also disqualified from driving for two years until he had passed an extended driving test, and was ordered to undertake 200 hours of unpaid work within 12 months, and to pay a victim surcharge of £187.
It was alleged that the conviction rendered Mr Kane unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse.
From the outset, Mr Kane admitted the facts contained in the charge, but did not accept that this rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse.
After the criminal proceedings, Mr Kane wrote to express his deepest regret for his actions and the pain and guilt they had caused, stating that there was not a single day that had passed that he had not thought about the family that was affected by his actions, and the lifelong consequences that they now face.
He went on to express that he understood that as a member of a trusted profession, his conduct must reflect not only his clinical competence, but also his integrity and accountability.
He also noted that he had sought to recognise and address the consequences of his actions and that he is determined to make a positive contribution to society and to the profession.
The Committee found the charge proved on the basis of Mr Kane’s admission and the Certificate of Conviction.
The Committee found a number of factors relevant to the case:
The question for the Committee was whether Mr Kane’s conviction of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, when put into proper context, rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse.
This was not a conviction in any way linked to his practise and there was no suggestion that he represented any sort of a risk to animals in his care.
The Committee was not, therefore, concerned with any issues arising out of the need to protect animals, but rather with whether a finding of unfitness to practise was needed to uphold standards of conduct and behaviour in order to maintain public confidence in the profession.
Kathryn Peaty, Chair of the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee took into account the public interest which includes maintaining public confidence in the profession and the regulator and upholding proper standards in the profession.
"The public interest also includes allowing an otherwise competent veterinary nurse to continue in practice, where appropriate.
“Agreeing with the judge that this was indeed an exceptional case, the Committee did not consider that Mr Kane’s conduct was liable to have a seriously detrimental effect on the reputation of the profession and concluded that the public, in full knowledge of the circumstances of this particular case, would not expect a finding that the conviction renders him unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse.
"Rather, the public would recognise that whilst the consequences were appalling and tragic for the family involved, in terms of Mr Kane’s culpability this was a momentary piece of dangerous driving, categorised by the judge as a ‘mistake’ rather than anything more blameworthy.
“The Committee therefore concluded that Mr Kane’s conviction does not render him unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse.
"This is not to in any way detract from the catastrophic consequences for the family, but rather is to reflect the context, exceptional circumstances and level of culpability in this case.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/
The College says the event is aimed at RVNs who are interested in upholding standards of veterinary nursing professional conduct and who would like to help the RCVS maintain public confidence in the veterinary nursing profession. Prospective applicants for these roles should ideally have a minimum of five years' experience in veterinary nurse practice.
Attendees will have the opportunity to chat to representatives of the committee, and the staff involved in handling cases that go to disciplinary hearings. There will also be a short presentation on the application process from Thewlis Graham Associates – the external agency handling the recruitment.
RCVS staff and DC members will present some anonymised VN DC / DC example cases to talk through in small informal groups, to help convey an idea of the work involved and the challenges one could expect to face when making decisions on allegations of serious professional misconduct or fitness to practise.
The overall programme will be run in the afternoon from 3pm – 5pm and repeated in the early evening from 6pm – 8pm, to suit differing diaries and travel times. Snacks and refreshments will be provided on the day, and the RCVS will reimburse reasonable travel expenses for attendees.
Places at the information day can be reserved by contacting Deborah Rowlanes, RCVS Events Manager, via D.Rowlanes@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0773. The deadline for registering is Friday 21 February 2020.
Alternatively, if you can't attend on the day itself, but would like to speak to the RCVS Registrar and Director of Legal Services Eleanor Ferguson about the vacancies, you can contact Deborah to arrange a convenient time.
Prospective committee members will then have until 5pm GMT Monday 2 March to submit their applications. Applications can be submitted through the Thewlis Graham Associates website: www.thewlisgraham.com/assignment-briefings.
Mr Roger faced three charges: that he had failed to provide adequate care, failed to communicate with the owner adequately and failed to keep adequate clinical records for Honey, a Shiih Tzu dog who, it transpired, had hypergycaemia.
At the initial consultation, Mr Roger took a blood sample which showed that there was an elevated blood glucose, an elevated white blood cell count, an elevated ALT and an elevated ALP (which Mr Roger took to be indicative of liver damage secondary to infection).
Mr Roger prescribed a cholagogue (ursodeoxycholic acid), an antibiotic (Synulox) and a diuretic (Frusemide).
In its findings of fact, the Committee found it likely that Mr Roger would have realised that Honey had a potential diabetes mellitus diagnosis with an elevated blood glucose of 28.
However, Mr Roger explained that he had believed the elevated blood glucose was due to the stress Honey had undergone in taking the blood samples.
The Committee therefore accepted that Mr Roger’s actions did not indicate a complete failure by him to notice the elevated blood glucose because he had explained he believed at the time it was due to stress.
Honey’s owner took her back to the veterinary practice that Mr Roger worked at three days later.
A different veterinary surgeon examined Honey and flagged that her blood sugar was high and that her liver was damaged.
She was taken to an alternative veterinary practice for follow-up but died later that day.
Mr Roger admitted failing to ask Honey’s owner if there was a history of diabetes mellitus, failing to take repeat blood glucose tests or carry out urine analysis or carry out additional blood tests, failing to communicate adequately with Honey’s owner about the significance of the hyperglycaemia and the options for investigation/management and failing to keep adequate clinical records in regard to Honey’s blood glucose levels.
The Committee found the admitted facts proved.
The evidence presented to the Committee included the clinical notes taken during Honey’s consultations, emails sent from Honey’s owner to the RCVS outlining the complaint, and evidence from experts in small animal veterinary practice.
Although the Committee found some matters not proved, it did find proved that Mr Roger had failed to recognise and/or pay adequate regard to Honey’s elevated blood glucose levels, had failed to manage Honey’s hyperglycaemia either by treating it or by documenting an appropriate plan to do so and had failed to communicate adequately with Honey’s owner about the significance of her elevated glucose and the reason for it.
Having reached its decision in relation to the facts, the Committee went on to consider whether the facts it had found proved either individually or cumulatively amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Judith Way, Chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf said: “The Committee found that the charges and particulars it had found proved did not amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect either individually or cumulatively.
"In its judgment, the conduct found proved fell short of the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon but not far short of the standard which is expected of the reasonably competent veterinary surgeon.”
As a result of the Committee finding that Mr Roger was not guilty of serious professional misconduct on any of the proven charges, either individually or in any combination, the hearing did not proceed further.
The survey was held in mid-June and gathered 196 responses from UK practices. That compared with the 532 responses to the initial survey conducted early in April and 251 responses to the second survey conducted at the start of May.
One of the main findings was a marked increase in the number of practices running a near-normal caseload, from 3% in May to 32% in June. Practice turnover data similarly reflected a shift back towards normality, with 46% now reporting a reduction of less than 25%, compared with 19% last month.
Other findings included:
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, said: "This latest survey has demonstrated a continuation of the previous survey’s positive trends including an increase in practice turnover with more practices approaching a ‘near normal caseload’ and with a reduction in the number of practices impacted by staff self-isolating or with confirmed cases of Covid-19.
“In this survey we also asked about what difficulties practices may be experiencing with EMS placements for vet students and VN training placements as a result of Covid-19, and this will help us to understand how we can better support students and practices in these areas.
“We will continue to monitor the situation via these regular surveys, with the next one planned for later this summer. I would urge as many practices as possible to continue to complete them, so that we can build up a stronger evidence-base on how veterinary businesses have been affected and how they are recovering.
"This information is not only vital for our own policy decisions but also allows us to present a stronger case to the Government and other public bodies where we wish to influence the decisions they make that will impact the veterinary professions and businesses.”
The survey results can be read in full at www.rcvs.org.uk/coronavirus-resources.
The Disciplinary Committee considered a number of charges against Javier Salas Navarro MRCVS and Roman Kristin over 35 days.
The charges against Dr Navarro concerned his treatment of a kitten named Marnie. They included:
In August 2016, failing to read the anaesthesia consent form in relation to a surgical spay he performed;
When Marnie was readmitted for surgery, failing to read the anaesthesia consent form, failing to undertake adequate assessment of Marnie’s condition; performing surgery without adequately considering her condition; subjecting Marnie to anaesthesia without recognising the seriousness of her illness; failing to obtain informed consent from the owners; administering medication which was contra-indicated; and failure to make an adequate record of his involvement in Marnie’s care.
The charges against Dr Kristin also related to his treatment of Marnie. They included:
In August 2016, failing to undertake an adequate assessment of her condition; failure to recognise and record the fact that Marnie could not pass urine; failure to refer or offer her for specialist treatment; and failure to ensure Marnie received care and treatment overnight.
When admitting Marnie for surgery, that he made a number of clinical mistakes including failure to gain informed consent; and failure to recognise the seriousness of her illness;
that there were a number of failings in relation to Marnie’s care, including failure to arrange adequate overnight care, failure to monitor and record her condition, and failure to gain informed consent for the overnight care.
that he failed to advise Marnie’s owners that he suspected her uterers had been ligated during the spay, failed to advise Marnie’s owners that she required specialist veterinary treatment; and advised that Marnie undergo further surgery at the practice in spite of this meaning her having to undergo further anaesthesia in a week and with poor chances of survival;
that the above conduct was misleading and dishonest.
The Disciplinary Committee found a number of the facts in the charges against both Dr Navarro and Dr Kristin proven (the full details can be found in the documentation at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
The Committee found that Dr Navarro breached a number of aspects of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons including: making animal health and welfare the first consideration when attending to animals; the provision of appropriate and adequate veterinary care; responsible prescription, supply and administration of medicines; communication with professional colleagues to ensure the health and welfare of the animal; being open and honest with clients and respecting their needs and requirements; effective communication with clients; keeping clear and accurate clinical records; and working with the veterinary team to coordinate the care of animals.
Of the proven charges, the Committee found that his initial failure to read Marnie’s anaesthesia consent form on 5 August did not amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, but that the repetition of this failure on 9 August did amount to disgraceful conduct. It also found that Dr Navarro’s failure to undertake adequate assessment and perform surgery without this assessment amounted to serious professional misconduct. Furthermore, the Committee found that subjecting Marnie to anaesthesia in spite of her being unwell, failure to obtain informed consent and failure to keep adequate records also amounted to serious professional misconduct.
For Dr Kristin, in summary, the Committee found not proven the allegation that he had failed to respond on 5 August 2016 to concerns from Marnie’s owners about her condition while she was recovering from a surgical spay and also all the allegations relating to Dr Kristin’s admission of Marnie to the practice on 9 August on the basis that it was not satisfied so as to be sure that Dr Kristin had been the veterinary surgeon who admitted Marnie on that day.
The Committee found proven the remaining charges and found he breached the following parts of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons: making animal health and welfare the first consideration when attending to animals; keeping within area of competence and referring responsibly; providing appropriate and adequate veterinary care; responsible prescribing, supply and administration of medicines; communication with colleagues to ensure the health and welfare of the animal; being open and honest with clients and respecting their needs and requirements; communicating effectively with clients and obtaining informed consent; keeping clear and accurate clinical records; and working with the veterinary team to coordinate the care of animals.
Of the proven charges, the Committee determined that his failure to adequately assess Marnie’s health, to obtain a clinical history, to undertake blood tests and recognise that she was seriously ill, amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect and led to “Marnie’s underlying condition going undetected and undoubtedly contributed to her eventual death two days later”.
The Committee also found that Dr Kristin’s decision to hospitalise Marnie without adequate overnight care, place her on IV fluids without monitoring the treatment or her condition, and failure to obtain adequate informed consent – among other things – amounted disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "As a direct result of Dr Kristin’s acts and omissions, Marnie was left alone overnight on fluids when those fluids had nowhere to go. Had he done his job properly he would have known that and Marnie could have avoided the prolonged suffering caused by the chosen course of treatment that did not address the underlying condition. Every element of Dr Kristin’s behaviour was catastrophic for Marnie, and yet he took no personal responsibility for her welfare and just went home.”
Following its findings on disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, the Committee then went on to consider its sanction for both Dr Navarro and Dr Kristin.
In respect of Dr Navarro, the Committee considered the mitigating factors including previous good character, admissions to some of the facts of the case from the outset; genuine insight and remorse into the seriousness of the actions; his youth and inexperience; and relevant and good-quality testimonials from colleagues. The Committee noted that the testimonials were universally positive and demonstrated that Dr Navarro had reflected on his conduct, had become more mature and confident in his practice and made efforts to rectify the areas in which he had fallen below standards.
Stuart Drummond said: “Although the consequences for Marnie and her owners were clearly devastating, the Committee considered that Dr Navarro’s part in her demise has to be seen in the context of all the evidence. In light of the extensive mitigation, including significant evidence of insight and remediation, the Committee was able to conclude that Dr Navarro did not represent a future risk to animals or the public. In such circumstances, the Committee considered that it was not necessary to restrict Dr Navarro’s registration and that a reprimand was the appropriate and proportionate sanction in his case.”
In relation to Dr Kristin, the Committee took into account positive character evidence from Mr Karel Daniel, a semi-retired veterinary surgeon and Vice-President of the Czech Republic Veterinary Chamber, a similar body to the RCVS in that country, as well as other testimonials on his behalf. In mitigation, the Committee considered Dr Kristin’s previously unblemished career, the fact that it was a single case involving a single animal; some development of insight into his conduct; no evidence of repetition; expressions of remorse; the impact of a family bereavement during the course of proceedings; and his financial position.
However, the Committee also took into account aggravating factors including a lack of candour from Dr Kristin when he was giving evidence, demonstrated by a tendency to blame others rather than take responsibility, as well as his recklessness in suggesting a third operation on Marnie that was not in her interests, rather than referring her into specialist care.
The final decision of the Committee on the sanction for Dr Kristin was that, given the seriousness of the misconduct, it was satisfied that this warranted a six-month suspension period. However, given the mitigating factors, the Committee decided that four months was appropriate and proportionate.
Commenting on the sanction Stuart Drummond said: “The Committee determined that it was important a clear message be sent that this sort of behaviour is wholly inappropriate and not to be tolerated. It brings discredit upon the respondent and discredit upon the profession and, most importantly, caused harm to Marnie and great distress to her owners.
"The Committee did consider whether to remove Dr Kristin from the Register. However, in light of the mitigation in this case, the fact that this was a single case in an otherwise unblemished career, together with the unlikelihood he would repeat his disgraceful conduct, the Committee decided that, in all the circumstances, to remove him from the Register would be disproportionate.
"The Committee therefore decided to order that the Registrar suspend Dr Kristin’s registration…. The Committee was satisfied that a period of four months was appropriate and proportionate in all the circumstances."
The full facts and findings from the case can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The review was recommended to 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 are the interpretation and application of an animal being under the care of a veterinary surgeon, and the provision of 24-hour emergency cover.
The College says that during the course of its research, which included numerous meetings and reports, a public consultation and examination of external legal advice, the Committee identified a number of anomalies in the College’s existing guidance that could affect how the Code’s provisions were applied across a range of different scenarios.
Chair of the Standards Committee, Dr Kate Richards, said: "It became clear to us that we could not consider telemedicine and remote prescribing in isolation and that it raised broader questions around the appropriateness of, and justification for, certain elements of existing RCVS guidance. I’m therefore pleased that RCVS Council has decided that the right and responsible approach is first to conduct a full review of these provisions."
The College anticipates that the review will require wide engagement from all relevant sectors, potentially including a Select Committee-style hearing in certain areas. This, it says, would help to ensure any decision to treat different groups differently, in relation to 'under care' and 'out-of-hours', is both reasoned and justified.
In the meantime, the College says that the current provisions of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance remain in full effect.
Further information about the review will be made available in due course.
UPDATE (19/06/2019)
Following a number of concerns raised by members of the profession about this story, the RCVS has issued a further statement as follows:
We would like to acknowledge and address a number of concerns that have arisen amongst the profession following RCVS Council’s discussion last week that followed up queries raised during the previous debate in November, around the provision of telemedicine services, including remote prescribing.
The RCVS Council decision, made unanimously, was to proceed with a wide-ranging review of RCVS supporting guidance concerning 24-hour emergency cover and the interpretation and application of ‘under veterinary care’, and to postpone the proposed telemedicine trial for the foreseeable future and certainly until the conclusion of this review. The review will encompass, but not be limited to, consideration of what restrictions or safeguards to place on remote prescribing in the form of vet-to-client telemedicine.
RCVS Council discussed this paper ‘in committee’ in order to be able to examine the confidential legal advice it had requested at its previous meeting. The decision to hold these discussions privately was purely related to the privileged nature of legal advice and in no way related to any ‘commercial interests’.
We recognise fully that this is a complex issue, with strong views held on all sides. However, it is entirely right and proper for RCVS Council members to be able to discuss and debate such topics in detail, before reaching a decision through a vote. In the course of such discussions, issues may arise that had not previously been identified, and which may alter the original direction of thinking.
We appreciate that Council’s decision was perhaps unexpected, especially as the original topic had been under consideration for some time. This is why we announced it as soon as possible, along with an indication of what Council would like to happen next.
Whilst it is far too early to have worked out the details of the agreed review, it will be open and inclusive in parallel with our previous consultations, which continue to receive considerable levels of engagement across the veterinary professions and wider industry stakeholders.
We will publish full details about our plans for this review over the coming weeks, and will continue to work hard to engage all veterinary professionals in these important decisions.
The survey was conducted by Mo Gannon & Associates, which asked 2,000 UK adults about their satisfaction with the service they and their animals received from veterinary surgeons, levels of trust in the profession, and whether the service provided by vets represents value for money.
32% of the respondents felt that veterinary surgeons represented excellent (8%) or good (24%) value for money. 38% thought that veterinary fees are fair. However, 29% thought that veterinary surgeons and their services provided poor (21%) or very poor (8%) value for money. The results were very similar to the last time the survey was conducted, in 2015.
Nevertheless, veterinary surgeons continue to enjoy very high levels of trust amongst the public. 94% said they either completely trust (34%) or generally trust (60%) vets. This put veterinary surgeons in third place amongst the most trusted professions, below opticians and pharmacists but above GPs and and dentists.
Satisfaction with the profession was also high. 80% said they were either very satisfied (39%) or satisfied (41%), putting vets in fourth place below opticians, pharmacists and dentists, but above general practitioners and accountants.
RCVS President Dr Niall Connell, pictured right (would you trust this man?) said: "These results clearly demonstrate that there is a great deal of good will towards the veterinary profession and the work they do in treating the nation’s animals and serving their communities. The basis of all good relationships is trust, and it is fantastic to see that our clients continue overwhelmingly to trust our knowledge and expertise and remain very happy with the service we provide them.
"The picture on value for money is clearly a bit more mixed, although clearly 70% of the respondents recognise that we at least charge fair fees in terms of our time and expertise. There is, of course, always more work that we can do in order to help the public understand veterinary costs and fees and promote the value of veterinary care, as demonstrated by last year’s joint Pets Need Vets social media campaign with BVA, in which we highlighted the benefits to pet owners of being registered with a vet."
The elections will again be held completely online this year.
Veterinary nurses have until 5pm on Monday 31st January 2022 to put themselves forward as candidates for the elections which will take place in March and April 2022.
The full eligibility criteria can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/vncouncil22, where prospective candidates will also find further information about the role of the RCVS, RCVS VN Council and RCVS VN Council members, guidance notes, and frequently asked questions about standing as a candidate.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for the elections, said: “We look forward to hearing from prospective candidates and are happy to give further information about what being an RCVS VN Council member means and what the role entails to those who may be considering standing for office.”
Prospective candidates for RCVS Council can also contact VN Council Chair Matthew Rendle for an informal conversation on what it means to be an RCVS Council member on vncchair@rcvs.org.uk
Matthew said: This 60th anniversary year for the veterinary nursing profession has been a time to take stock about how far the profession has come and where it is going.
"One thing I have appreciated is the important role both VN Council and its committees will continue to have in this development process, by making key decisions on areas such as student training and wellbeing, continuing professional development, post-registration qualifications and statuses, and registration of veterinary nurses.
“I would be happy to talk to anyone who might be interested in joining VN Council about its role and how you could contribute both to it, and to the wider profession.”
Anyone interested in the work done by Council can also visit: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/who-we-are/vn-council/vn-council-meetings/ to see the agendas for previous meetings.
Earlier this year, the RCVS Council approved the roll-out of a more outcomes-based model of CPD to encourage veterinary professionals to engage in greater reflection on learning and development, and the impact that it has on their professional practice.
To support this approach, Council also approved the development of a new CPD recording platform designed to be more intuitive and to make it easy to record CPD in real time.
The College says the new platform – which has the working title of 'One CPD' – will be a ‘one stop shop’ CPD management solution for veterinary surgeons and nurses at all stages of their careers, including veterinary students and student veterinary nurses.
Richard Burley, RCVS Chief Technology Officer, said: "We’re excited to open up access to this powerful, next-generation, tool we’ve been building and welcome our members into an important phase of the development process. Testing with our members will be absolutely critical in delivering the very best experience possible for all those that use 'One CPD' in the future. Ease of use and truly valuable functionality are key deliverables for us and both these need the feedback of our members to perfect."
Dr Linda Prescott-Clements, RCVS Director of Education (pictured right), added: "The first stage of the development of the CPD recording platform is due to finish in October and so we are looking for a cohort of both veterinary surgeons and nurses who can spend a few months this autumn using the new platform to record and reflect on their CPD, in order to test out some of the new features which aim to make this process so much easier to do. We will consider their feedback carefully in order to improve the recording platform ready for launch in January 2020.
"The new ‘One CPD’ platform will ultimately replace the current Professional Development Record, and its use will become mandatory for recording CPD from January 2022.
"In addition to setting up the testing group, we are also looking to meet with key CPD providers for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses over the coming months to discuss our plans for outcomes-based CPD and the development of the recording platform in greater detail."
Veterinary nurses who'd like to take part in the testing for the CPD app, as well as CPD providers who want to discuss the College’s CPD policy plans, should contact Jenny Soreskog-Turp, RCVS CPD Officer, on cpd@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0701.
Professor Susan Dawson (pictured right), Chair of the Mind Matters Taskforce, will introduce the event and will be followed by the symposium’s plenary speaker, Rory O’Connor, Professor of Health Psychology at the University of Glasgow and President of the International Association for Suicide Prevention.
Rory's talk: ‘When It is Darkest: Understanding Suicide Risk’ will draw upon his research and work on the psychological processes which precipitate suicidal behaviour and self-harm, an area of expertise that has seen him advise the Scottish Government, as well as other national and international organisations, on suicide prevention strategies.
The next presentation will be from Dr Victoria Crossley from the Royal Veterinary College and Navaratnam Partheeban, co-founder of the British Veterinary Ethnicity & Diversity Society (BVEDS), on their research into the mental health impact of racism and discrimination on Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) veterinary surgeons.
They'll be followed by Professor Neil Greenberg and Dr Victoria Williamson from King’s College London, who will talk about their research into the impact of ‘moral injury’ on the mental health and wellbeing of vets.
The day will then split into different research streams with presentations on a variety of topics including: the impact of cyberbullying and harassment; the wellbeing of veterinary interns and residents; stigma and stress in veterinary nursing; mental health awareness training in the undergraduate veterinary curriculum; and the relationship between ‘patient safety culture’ and staff burnout.
Lisa Quigley, Mind Matters Manager, said: “As with previous years the Mind Matters Mental Health Research Symposium promises to be a very informative and important day in terms of international researchers coming together to share their research, their conclusions, areas for further work and study, and best practice.
"Some of the topics we will be discussing, such as suicide, will be difficult, but research into issues affecting the international veterinary community is a vital first step to putting in place strategies and support mechanisms to help those in need. This is why research will be one of the key strategic priorities for the Mind Matters Initiative and our forthcoming actions in this area will be published later this year in our Mind Matters Initiative Strategic Plan.
“I would like to thank Dr Rosie Allister, a veterinary mental health researcher from the University of Edinburgh and manager of Vetlife Helpline, for putting together an excellent programme.
"As with previous years we are also offering free attendance of the symposium to those who have lived experience of mental ill-health, those who are currently not working, and veterinary and veterinary nursing students. If you have any queries about the event, please don’t hesitate to contact me on l.quigley@rcvs.org.uk to discuss further.”
Registration for those not entitled to a free ticket is £10.
To register for the event visit: www.vetmindmatters.org/events.
Matthew has been a veterinary nurse since 1989 and, throughout his career, has had a focus on nursing exotic animals, particularly in the zoo setting, with experience of nursing everything from ‘ants to elephants’. He regularly lectures to veterinary nursing and veterinary surgeon undergraduates at the Royal Veterinary College as part of their core modules on topics such as herpetological husbandry, and some areas of zoo and wildlife diagnostic imaging and anaesthesia. He also lectures extensively on herpetology throughout Europe and America.
Matthew has been an elected member of VN Council since 2016 and was re-elected this year. He was chosen to be Chair at last week's meeting of VN Council. He said: “I am very proud to be the first male veterinary nurse to hold the position of Chair of RCVS VN Council. In this position I will continue to work hard to support and progress the profession of the veterinary nurse.
"It is fundamental we give the general public, as well as our fellow veterinary professionals, a greater understanding of the excellent work we do. We have a positive impact on animal health and welfare, whatever the clinical environment or species. The lack of understanding of what veterinary nurses do is often cited as a chronic issue within my profession and it is something I plan to prioritise during my tenure as Chair of VN Council."
Joining Matthew will be Belinda Andrews-Jones RVN who was elected as Vice-Chair of VN Council. Belinda has worked in veterinary nursing for almost 30 years with a focus on emergency & critical care and is currently Director for Nursing at CVS, where she leads the more than 2,000 nurses in the group. Belinda has been an appointed member of VN Council since 2018.
Belinda said: “I am delighted to have been elected as Vice-Chair of VN Council by my fellow Council members. It is a huge honour and privilege to be contributing to the RCVS and the profession, in protecting and upholding the high standards of the UK veterinary nurse profession, while progressing the profession forward.
“I feel I can make a positive contribution to the already fantastic work that the college has achieved. I am passionate about progressing the profession forward and expanding the role of UK veterinary nurses."
Both Matthew and Belinda will take up their appointments as Chair and Vice-Chair respectively at this year’s RCVS Annual General Meeting which takes place on Friday, 10 July 2020. On that day the RCVS will also be saying farewell to the current VN Council Chair Racheal Marshall who was not re-elected in this year’s VN Council election.
More information about this year’s AGM can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/events/royal-college-day.
The deal includes an option for the College to lease the building for up to two years to give it time to consider its options for the future, and how they may have changed as a result of the pandemic.
The decision to sell the property was made back in November 2018, when Council decided that the building was rapidly becoming unfit for purpose and the College needed more up-to-date and modern facilities with more room for a growing workforce. The College’s Estates Strategy Project Board was tasked with managing the process, chaired by former RCVS President Barry Johnson.
RCVS Treasurer Susan Dawson said: “Council recognised that this deal realised maximum value for the building, especially considering the impact the pandemic has had on property prices in Central London.
“It also provides a very valuable opportunity to reflect on the changing needs of the organisation and the professions and public it serves, and to consider the requirements and different working patterns of the College staff going forwards.
“It is likely that many staff members will wish to continue to work at home more than they did pre-Covid, so the need for pure desk-space may not be as great as we had planned for the 10-15 years ahead. However, the importance of in-person meetings for collaboration, creativity and the maintenance of good corporate culture is not to be underestimated, so our new requirements are likely to be different to that anticipated back in 2018.”
The College says it expects to welcome limited numbers of staff back to the office in June, to work in a socially distanced way, including virtual or partly-virtual meetings.
Changes to working patterns over the coming months will also help inform decisions around future remote working policies and the type and size of building that will best suit the future needs of the College and its workforce.
The ‘Introduction to the UK veterinary professions’ is a two-part online course run in partnership with VDS Training, designed to equip vets and nurses with the insight needed to work in the UK veterinary profession.
Due to the coronavirus pandemic, the course has been moved online. It includes a series of free online pre-recorded talks from representatives at a number of different veterinary organisations, including the RCVS, VDS Training, the British Veterinary Association, Vetlife, and VetAbroad.
The talks cover a variety of topics such as the Code of Professional Conduct, how to find the right job for you, how to look after mental health and wellbeing, and recognising and understanding cultural differences.
There will then be a number of live Question and Answer sessions across different dates over the coming months [see below], which are also free to attend, so those who have watched the videos can ask further questions from some of the speakers themselves.
Part 2 of the course is an optional practical and participatory paid-for online live communications skills training session run by VDS Training, looking at how to navigate some of the most common pitfalls encountered during client consultations, helping to equip you with the skills and confidence to communicate effectively in practice.
Ian Holloway, RCVS Director of Communications, said: “While we enjoyed running this course in person and meeting veterinary professionals from all over the world, the coronavirus pandemic has also given us the opportunity to look at how we can make this course even more accessible for a greater number of people.
“While there is still a significant live element, albeit online for the time being, the pre-recorded talks enable those veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses to do much of the learning in their own time, without having to take time off work or travel to London for the day, meaning that more people can engage with this crucial information on working in the UK.”
Elly Russell MRCVS, a consultant at VDS Training, added: “Communicating with clients can be one of the most rewarding, but also challenging parts of our jobs as veterinary professionals. Communication problems lead to complaints, increase your stress at work and can impact the care our patients receive. Join VDS training for a highly interactive, online 4-hour workshop. Work in small groups with our experienced facilitators and role players using realistic scenarios to practise and develop your communication skills. Let us help you feel more confident managing common communication challenges in UK practice: improved communication will help you, your clients, and your patients.”
The dates for the free live 2021 Q&A sessions are:
The dates and times for the paid-for live online communications skills workshops from VDS Training are:
The cost for attending the communication skills session (Part 2) is £150 +VAT per person. It is not mandatory to complete both parts of the course, but those who are interested may choose the part of the course most suitable for them.
For further information: www.rcvs.org.uk/overseas-cpd
The Legislative Reform Consultation took place between November 2020 and April 2021 and asked members of the veterinary profession and the public to give their responses to a package of proposals for future veterinary legislation designed to enhance the role of veterinary nurses, modernise RCVS registration, lead to a modern fitness to practise regime, and ensure the regulation of veterinary practices.
The proposals represent the biggest legislative reform since the 1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act.
In total the consultation received 1,330 responses, of which 714 (54%) were from veterinary surgeons, 335 (25%) from veterinary nurses, 93 (7%) from veterinary paraprofessionals, 73 (5%) from student veterinary nurses, 58 (4%) from members of the public, 40 (3%) from veterinary and industry organisations, including representative bodies, and the remainder from veterinary students and veterinary practice managers.
An analysis of the consultation responses covering each of the five core areas and their individual recommendations can be found in the final report, which is available at www.rcvs.org.uk/legislativereform.
After considering this report, Council voted by a majority to accept the recommendations, meaning that they are now formally adopted as RCVS policy and will form the basis for discussions on the need for new legislation with the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra).
Professor Stephen May has chaired the Legislation Working Party that developed the proposal since its inception in 2017 when he was RCVS President. He said: “We are very grateful to those individuals and organisations who took the time to complete this very important consultation on recommendations for the future legislative framework for the professions. We also appreciate the candour of those who were unsure about or opposed to the recommendations.
“When the Legislation Working Party met to consider the responses and the report, it decided that, while no substantive changes needed to be made to the principle-based recommendations, the points raised both against and in favour of individual recommendations gave us important material for additional consideration, and food for thought as to how any detailed proposals would be implemented once enabling legislation is in place.
“We look forward to submitting these recommendations to Defra formally, with a view to them becoming, in time, a bill put before Parliament to replace the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966. In so doing, this would establish a modern, flexible and comprehensive piece of legislation that would make sure the regulatory structure for the veterinary professions is fit for purpose for decades to come.”
As well as the main report of the Legislative Reform Consultation, RCVS Council also considered a series of interim measures that would be in line with the overall aims of future legislative changes, but which could be implemented without primary legislation.
The proposed interim measures included:
Council members voted on each of these interim measures on an individual basis – with the mini-PICs and the Charter Case Protocol being accepted by majority vote.
However, Council members voted against implementing the change to the standard of proof at this time, citing a number of concerns about the potential impact of it being implemented under the current concerns investigation and disciplinary procedures. Similar concerns had been put forward by many of those who responded to the consultation itself.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: “The approved procedural changes will, I believe, lead to a significant improvement in the efficiency and effectiveness of our disciplinary processes. The Charter Case Protocol will mean that, in suitable cases where a finding of serious professional misconduct at a full disciplinary hearing would likely only lead to a reprimand or to no further action being taken, a more proportionate and less time-consuming and expensive means of resolving cases will be available. However, it will still reflect the seriousness of the matters and continue to protect the public interest, welfare and the reputation of the profession.
“Furthermore, by phasing out the Case Examiner Group stage and instead referring concerns to ‘mini’ PICs, which will decide if the threshold of serious professional misconduct has been met, it will make our concerns investigation processes clearer and more streamlined and therefore more efficient. We look forward to publishing further details on both of these changes in due course.
“Although Council members accepted that a change of the standard of proof would be an integral part of introducing a modern fitness to practise (FTP) regime as part of any future legislation, they had significant concerns about the ‘interim’ recommendation to introduce it under the current arrangements, in advance of implementing a full FTP model, and so a majority felt that they could not vote for it.”
To read the full report of the Legislative Reform Consultation, including analysis of the responses, please visit www.rcvs.org.uk/legislativereform.
Specifically, remote assessments will make sure that practices are continuing to meet Veterinary Medicines Regulations, the Core Standards of the PSS and other key standards relating to the practice's accreditation type and level.
Mandisa Greene, RCVS President and Chair of the Practice Standards Group, said: “We have introduced these remote assessments as a means of being able to quality assure veterinary practices that are either in the Scheme or who wish to join it, while still making sure that public health is safeguarded and that the burden our face-to-face assessments may place on practices is reduced.
"All our Practice Standards Scheme Assessors will be trained in carrying out remote assessments, and practices that are due an assessment will be given the full details of how it will work in advance, just like if a physical assessment of the premises were taking place.
"In the immediate-term we will be prioritising those practices that were due assessment visits in March, April and May this year which were cancelled due to the nationwide lockdown and they are currently being contacted to make arrangements. We will then start a rolling programme of visits for the other delayed assessments over the next few months. We will aim to give all practices at least one month’s notice before a visit takes place."
In order to help veterinary teams at RCVS-accredited practices understand the changes and its implications, the RCVS has produced a list of anticipated FAQs containing the details of how remote assessments will work. These can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/practice-standards-scheme/remote-assessments.
Those with any additional enquiries should contact the RCVS Practice Standards Team on: pss@rcvs.org.uk.
The online book invites veterinary nurses to leave written messages of condolence, and pictures.
The book will be available until Monday 3rd October.
Dr Melissa Donald MRCVS, President of the RCVS who will be attending the Queen’s state funeral on behalf of the College, said: “I, along with my colleagues in the Officer Team and on RCVS and VN Councils, were greatly saddened to learn of the death of Her Majesty the Queen last week.
“As our Patron and benefactor since her accession to the throne 70 years ago, as a keen supporter of the veterinary professions who had many interactions with its members, and as an animal-lover, we were keen to give veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses the opportunity to leave messages of condolence, anecdotes about meeting Her Majesty, and tributes for her many years of duty and service to this country.
“After it closes, we plan to save a digital copy of the online book in the RCVS historical archives for posterity.”
Any nurses who have not received the original email should contact communications@rcvs.org.uk.