View all veterinary jobs
Mr Eccles had first appeared before the Disciplinary Committee in November 2018 where he admitted a number of clinical failings regarding his diagnosis of a cat, the keeping of accurate and detailed clinical records, giving the animal appropriate treatment, surgery and care, and failing to provide the cat’s owners with adequate information on the cat’s care upon discharge.
After Mr Eccles admitted the two charges against him, and the Committee found him guilty of serious professional misconduct, the Committee then postponed its decision on sanction on the condition that Mr Eccles agreed to abide by a set of undertakings in the interim. They included: the preparation of a personal development plan, the enrolment of his practice in the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme, the appointment of a veterinary mentor, the completion of additional training and CPD, and his agreement to pay any costs of complying with the undertakings, including the appointment of and work undertaken by the appointed mentor.
At the resumed hearing last week, the Committee received evidence from Mr Eccles confirming that he had complied with all the original undertakings agreed to in 2018. It also considered some further undertakings that Mr Eccles had agreed to in October 2020 when his reconvened hearing was postponed due to the coronavirus pandemic. They included: confirming his compliance with the personal development plan he had drawn up in 2019, his practice achieving the Core Standards accreditation level within the Practice Standards Scheme, continuing to meet with his veterinary mentor, and undertaking additional CPD – all of which were found to be completed.
The Committee also heard evidence from both the veterinary mentor and Mr Eccles himself. In his evidence, Mr Eccles apologised to the owners of the cat for the care he had provided, admitting that he had let them and himself down by not having sufficient knowledge to recognise the cat’s needs and to provide him with a sufficient level of care. He also confirmed he was continuing to make improvements to his practice and that he had enjoyed the process of being mentored.
Dr Martin Whiting, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “In November 2018, Mr Eccles practice had fallen significantly short of an acceptable and adequate standard. He was a sole practitioner who had drifted away from professional standards.”
“The Committee today considers that Mr Eccles has met the undertakings which he accepted in November 2018 and again in October 2020 when the resumed hearing was adjourned owing to Covid-19. It accepts the College’s analysis as to how those standards have been met. It notes that Mr Eccles’ practice has achieved accreditation in Core Standards under the Practice Standard Scheme, something which is voluntary in ordinary practice. That is an exacting scheme. He has engaged with his mentor and had indicated that he will continue to do so as the need arises in order to maintain his development.”
Dr Whiting added: “The Committee also recognises that this was a single incident in a long career. It accepts that he has shown insight into his shortcomings. He understands what went wrong and why. The Committee was impressed with Mr Eccles’ statement of apology in his oral evidence today.”
“The Committee found the language which he used in answering its questions, as to the effect compliance with the undertakings has had upon him professionally, reassuring. He said he had been rejuvenated and stimulated; he had renewed enthusiasm for the profession. The Committee commends him for exceeding the minimum requirement of the undertakings, despite the stressful context of the Covid-19 pandemic.”
In considering its sanction for the original admitted charges from November 2018, the Committee considered that a reprimand and warning as to future conduct was the most appropriate and proportionate sanction.
The full findings for the case can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Mr Rushton was convicted of sexual assault after pleading guilty at Wood Green Crown Court in December 2022.
He was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, made subject to a restraining order and a 10-year sexual harm prevention order as well as being placed on the Sex Offenders Register for 10 years.
He was also ordered to pay £3,000 costs and a £140 victims’ surcharge.
Mr Rushton did not attend the RCVS hearing, where the facts of the charge were proven by the certificate of conviction and the judge’s sentencing remarks.
In considering whether the conviction rendered Mr Rushton unfit to practise veterinary medicine, the Committee considered that the case involved the sexual assault of a vulnerable woman who was also a professional colleague, and was a serious abuse of trust, reflected in the custodial sentence.
Dr Neil Slater MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “It was evident from the judge’s sentencing remarks that [the victim] had been seriously affected by the knowledge of what had occurred on that evening.
"That knowledge was bound, in itself, to be very distressing and according to the victim’s impact statement had a long- lasting impact on the victim’s self-esteem, resilience and relationship with others.
"The victim’s level of distress can only have been increased by the knowledge that the respondent had filmed and/or photographed his activity while she was unconscious and that the images were included on a memory stick which contained a number of other voyeuristic images.”
"The Committee was satisfied that the respondent’s behaviour had caused [the victim] significant psychological injury and carried with it a risk of causing such injury.
“The Committee was also satisfied that [the victim] was especially vulnerable because of the significant quantity of alcohol that she had consumed.
"In the circumstances that evolved, she was in the respondent’s care.
"The respondent abused the position of trust and responsibility that he occupied.
"He was a senior colleague, at a professional conference.
"Instead of taking appropriate steps to secure the welfare of [the victim], he used the position in which he found himself to engage in predatory sexual misconduct.
"Furthermore, his behaviour was opportunistic and, as the judge said, “clearly driven by [his] sexual desires."
Taking into account these factors, the Committee found that Dr Rushton was unfit to practise and next considered the sanction.
The Committee found no mitigating factors regarding the conviction but did take into account the fact there had been no previous regulatory findings against him.
In deciding the sanction, the Committee also noted that there was little evidence before them that Dr Rushton had shown serious insight into the impact of his offending.
Neil added: “In this context the Committee also noted that the respondent maintained a plea of not guilty until three days before a rearranged trial was due to take place, and subsequently advanced an account of what he said was his relationship with [the victim] which the judge found to be false.
“Taking all of these factors into account, the Committee is satisfied that removal from the register is the only proportionate outcome to this case.
"This sanction is necessary to declare and uphold appropriate standards of conduct for members of the veterinary profession and to maintain public confidence in the profession.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
Julie Dugmore, RCVS Director of Veterinary Nursing, said: "We have been in discussion with veterinary nursing education providers regarding a number of concerns they have raised regarding the support for student veterinary nurses and the progression with their licence to practise qualifications.
"These include concerns that, under the current circumstances, student veterinary nurses would not be able to fulfil their clinical placement requirements, as well as not being able to undertake the required assessments. Furthermore, institutions offering veterinary nurse education would not be able to continue their programme of approving and quality monitoring Training Practices.
"Therefore the following temporary arrangements and guidance have been approved by both the Veterinary Nurses (VN) Education Committee and VN Council. We ask that all student veterinary nurses, veterinary nursing education centres and Training Practices read the guidance.`'
The temporary arrangements and guidance are as follows:
Clinical placements
Several universities have expressed concerns regarding student veterinary nurses’ attendance in clinical placement over the coming weeks, due to the precautions around transmission of Coronavirus. This applies, in the main, to full-time students in all years of a programme, although there are particular concerns as to the impact this will have on final-year students being unable to complete the required number of hours in order to complete their programme and graduate.
Universities and awarding organisations have requested a degree of flexibility around the RCVS VN Registration Rules and completion of the RCVS Day One Skills, in light of the Covid-19 situation. The following therefore applies:
We recognise that it should not be compulsory for students to complete clinical placements within the next eight weeks, after which the situation will be reviewed. This will apply to students in any year of their studies.
We recognise that for students in their final year of study, it may be difficult for them to make up the hours of clinical placement missed prior to graduation. Universities and colleges should continue to support students and explore alternatives, however any shortfall relative to the requirements should not be a barrier to completion of the programme.
For BSc students in years 1 to 3 of their studies and FdSc students in years 1 and 2 of their studies, we would expect that there will be sufficient time for them to make up the number of hours prior to completing the programme. However we will review this as the Covid-19 pandemic progresses.
Student veterinary nurses will still be required to complete the Day One Skills for Veterinary Nurses in their totality as these seek to assure competency at the point of registration. Where a student has completed the Day One Skills in less than the 1,800 hours, this will be assessed on a case by case basis on application to register.
Assessments
We note that accreditation standards require veterinary nursing programmes to include an OSCE or similarly robust, objective and evidence-based form of practical examination to test safe and effective acquisition of a broad range of skills and competences as outlined in the RCVS Day One Competences and Skills for Veterinary Nurses.
There has been some concern regarding the number of examiners required for OSCE assessments in light of announcements from some organisations that are not allowing staff members to attend large gatherings.
Universities and awarding organisations may need to explore alternatives to the current delivery of the unseen and Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) used for assessment of the RCVS Day One Competences and Skills for Veterinary Nurses, as a result of measures to protect students and staff and reduce the risk of Coronavirus transmission. In this respect, the RCVS Examinations Manager and Chair of VN Education Committee will review proposals for changes to the assessment.
As universities and awarding organisation explore alternative methods, they should continue to consider the robustness of their processes in assessing practical skills.
Universities and awarding organisations will still be required to assure us, through subsequent analysis and evaluation, that all their assessments were sufficiently met Day One Competences and Skills.
Training Practice Approval and Quality Monitoring activities
532 veterinary practices responded to the survey, which was sent to 3,096 veterinary practices for which the RCVS had a unique email address, on 3rd April.
The survey found that:
Three-quarters of those who responded to the survey answered a question on how the RCVS could better support veterinary practices through the crisis. The most frequent response (27%) was that the RCVS needed to provide clearer guidance, in particular as to what services it was permissible for veterinary practices to provide [the College published its updated guidance and flowchart on 9 April].
Of those who responded to the question, 15% felt that the RCVS was doing a good job or that there was nothing more it should do, while just 2% of responses expressed negative sentiment towards the RCVS.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS Chief Executive, said: “I would like to thank all those practices who took the time in what is already a very fraught situation to respond to our survey and provide the evidence we need to gain a holistic picture of coronavirus’ impact on the business and economics of veterinary practices. We plan to continue running these surveys on a regular basis in order to gauge impact over time and the findings will feed into our policy and decision-making.
"This ongoing research will also be a vital tool when we are talking to Government and other bodies about the impact of policy on the veterinary sector. On this note, we are aware of the challenges of a minimum furlough period of three weeks given the need for practices to take steps to offer 24/7 emergency and critical care, and have written to government on this with some case studies around the impact this is having.
"To those on the ground it won’t come as too much of a surprise that the impact of the coronavirus has been profound in areas such as practice turnover and staffing, with many vets, veterinary nurses and other support staff being furloughed with the aim of signing them up to the Government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme.
"There are some bright spots in the data we’ve gathered – very few practices reported that they had made or were planning to make staff redundant, and many practices reported mitigating the challenge of social distancing by carrying out consultations with new and existing clients remotely.
"Since the survey took place we have also taken steps to meet some of the requests for greater clarity and guidance from the RCVS with the publication of our flowchart helping practices to decide what treatments it is appropriate to carry out safely amidst the COVID-19 pandemic."
The survey results can be read in full at www.rcvs.org.uk/publications.
The next practice impact survey is planned for early May.
The review started with a series of focus groups amongst veterinary professionals across multiple sectors.
This was followed by an analysis of the information gleaned from the focus groups, additional stakeholder submissions, data from the College's Covid surveys, independent research studies and formal legal advice to formulate an online qualitative survey to gain the views and feedback of UK-based veterinary professionals.
In this final stage, the public consultation, all veterinary professionals, vet and vet nurse students, practice managers and all those who work in the veterinary practice team are invited to share the extent to which they agree (or disagree) with each element of the proposed new guidance on ‘under care’, their views on the requirements for a 24/7 follow-up service following a remote prescription and other safeguards, and their feedback on the proposed definition of limited-service providers.
There will also be a consultation with members of the animal-owning public, which will likely include questions asking for information about animal owner experiences with remote prescriptions, the perceived advantages and/or disadvantages of remote prescribing, and views on 24/7 care and how important a service this is to respondents.
Dr Melissa Donald MRCVS, RCVS President and former Chair of the Standards Committee, said: “The past two years have shown us that the veterinary professions are highly capable of adopting new ways of working.
"It also revealed that we can adapt our established ways of practice to better respond to shifts in public expectations and advancements in technology.
"However, it is our collective responsibility to ensure that any changes continue to allow us to provide safe and effective care for our patients, and meet the appropriate expectations of our clients.
“Whilst we recognise and reflect on the need for change, the proposed guidance seeks to protect animal health and welfare and maintain public trust by ensuring that decision-making remains firmly in the hands of individual veterinary surgeons, as to what they, in their professional judgement, consider appropriate in a specific situation.
“This consultation, then, while not a referendum on whether RCVS guidance on ‘under care’ and 24-hour emergency first-aid and pain relief should change – that decision having been made by Standards Committee and approved by Council based on the evidence gathered, including the views of the profession and objective evidence, and legal advice – is a crucial opportunity for veterinary colleagues to tell us whether we have got the draft guidance right, whether the proposed safeguards are sufficient, and whether there is anything we might have missed or should amend.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/undercare.
The new guidance replaces Chapter 25 of the Supporting Guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct.
Routine Veterinary Practice describes the procedures and techniques performed on animals by veterinary surgeons (or veterinary nurses under their direction) in the course of their professional duties, which ensure the health and welfare of animals committed to their care.
CVR is when routine procedures are undertaken for the benefit of the animal/s, with the concurrent intention to generate new knowledge that benefits animals, such as developing new procedures, improving a diagnosis, changing a routine procedure, or comparing existing procedures.
While the idea of CVR is not new, this is the first time that the RCVS has provided specific guidance on it.
The guidance also introduces an obligation, which comes into effect on 1st September, to obtain ethics review for all studies where one would be expected to obtain permission from the owner/keeper of an animal prior to being enrolled, or when consent is needed for use of previously collected samples or the use of data from an animal.
The newly drafted Chapter 25 gives extra guidance on the following areas:
Chair of the Standards Committee and incoming RCVS President, Dr Melissa Donald (pictured right), said: “We hope that the guidance will inspire confidence in our veterinary colleagues at all levels to undertake treatment routes which develop veterinary knowledge as a whole, while still being for the benefit of the animal being treated.”
For further information or advice on whether a proposed procedure would be covered by the guidance, contact the Standards and Advice team via advice@rcvs.org.uk.
The new guidance will be found on the RCVS website from the 1st July: www.rcvs.org.uk/recognised
For further information in relation to ethics review of proposed veterinary clinical research studies, contact the Secretary to the RCVS Ethics Review Panel via ethics@rcvs.org.uk or visit www.rcvs.org.uk/ethics
The College says the consultation, which closes on 22nd December, reflects its commitment to keep reviewing its requirements for newly-qualified VNs to ensure they remain up-to-date and reflect the standards and expectations of current veterinary nursing practice.
Participants will be asked to comment on a proposed new set of requirements, which is divided into three parts:
Day One Competences: the minimum essential competences that the RCVS expects all student veterinary nurses to have met when they register, to ensure that they are safe to practise on day one.
Day One Skills Lists: the essential clinical skills that veterinary nurses are expected to possess on entering clinical practice.
Professional behaviours and attributes: this encompasses the behaviours newly-qualified veterinary nurses are expected to demonstrate on entering the profession.
Julie Dugmore, RCVS Director of Veterinary Nursing (pictured right), said: “With this consultation we want to gain an effective representation of what the professions desire from future RVNs in term of their range of skills and knowledge and professional behaviours from their first day in clinical practice.
"Any feedback we receive on the proposed new requirements will be vital in helping to ensure that student vet nurses receive the appropriate education and training, and that our RVNs are fully prepared and armed with what is necessary to thrive in and add value to current veterinary clinical practice.
Once the consultation is complete, the responses will be reported to the working group, which will then have a final opportunity to amend and agree the proposals, before being submitted to VN Council for consideration.
The aim is that VN Council will agree to the new version of the requirements in its February 2022 meeting.
The deadline for completing the consultation is 5pm on Wednesday 22 December 2021. A PDF document with the proposed new requirements as well as the link to the online survey can be accessed from www.rcvs.org.uk/VNdayone.
To take part, visit: www.rcvs.org.uk/VNdayone
The dispensation was originally introduced during the spring 2020 lockdown to safeguard animal health and welfare, the health and safety of the veterinary team, and public health, by allowing prescriptions to be made by veterinary surgeons without their having first physically examined the animal, subject to conditions and safeguards.
The RCVS says the Committee considered the ongoing challenges posed by Covid-19 and recognised that staff absences due to isolation requirements were still causing issues.
However, given the relaxation of the requirement to work from home in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland and relaxation of restrictions generally across the UK, the Committee felt it was time to end the dispensation.
Chair of the Standards Committee, Dr Melissa Donald MRCVS, said: “The safety and wellbeing of veterinary professionals, as well as the health and welfare of the animals they care for, have remained uppermost in our minds when considering this temporary position on remote prescribing.
“We are pleased to have been able to support the professions through a very difficult time by introducing this dispensation, however, it was only ever a temporary measure and, given the relaxation of restrictions across the UK, we feel the time has come to revert to our usual guidance.
“We will continue to keep the position under review in light of any changes, including governments’ advice and regulations, as we have throughout the pandemic.”
The annual minimum requirement for veterinary nurses will be reduced from 15 to 11 hours, while that of vets will be reduced from 35 to 26 hours of CPD. The reduction comes into force immediately.
The decision to reduce the hours was made by the new RCVS Council COVID-19 Taskforce, chaired by RCVS President Dr Niall Connell, which was set up in order to make temporary policy decisions related to the pandemic in a quicker and more agile way. The proposal had previously been considered and supported by the RCVS Education Committee, VN Council and CPD Policy Working Group.
Niall said: "A number of veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses expressed concern that it may be difficult to undertake CPD at present and so, in order to give the professions some breathing space, we decided we would reduce the minimum hours required for 2020. We also recognise that some practices are having to make the difficult decision to reduce their CPD budgets this year in response to falling footfall.
"However, it is worth reiterating that CPD need not be expensive or require physical attendance at lectures, congresses or other events. There are many online providers of CPD and other resources such as articles and webinars, some of which may be free. The key is that the CPD is relevant to you and enhances your professional practice and so we would still encourage all our members to undertake CPD as and when they can."
The policy will be under regular review and may be extended further if the circumstances demand. Those with any questions on the policy change should contact the RCVS Education Department on cpd@rcvs.org.uk
A full range of FAQs on the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact on the veterinary profession are available to view at www.rcvs.org.uk/coronavirus
The new guidance, which can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/coronavirus, will gradually replace the current emergency guidance and aims to help veterinary practices begin a phased return to near-normal operations:
Alongside the College’s guidance, the BVA is also publishing guidance for practices on working safely as lockdown restrictions are eased. [www.bva.co.uk/coronavirus/]
RCVS President Mandisa Greene said: “None of us could have predicted quite what an extraordinary and extraordinarily challenging 12 months this has been for everyone.
"On behalf of the whole of RCVS Council, I would like to thank sincerely once again all our veterinary and veterinary nursing colleagues, and all those in practice teams around the UK, for their awe-inspiring commitment, adaptability, resilience and sheer hard work in continuing to provide essential veterinary services and look after the health and welfare of the nation’s animals, in what have been the most difficult of times.
“Whilst I sincerely hope that we are at last beginning to see light at the end of the tunnel, if there is one thing we have learnt, it is that things can deteriorate rapidly if we don’t all continue to play our part and follow all relevant guidelines.
“I therefore urge my colleagues to continue to use their professional judgement and think very carefully about their gradual return to more normal working patterns over the coming weeks and months, according to their individual circumstances and the best interests of their teams, clients, and the animals they care for.”
RCVS Council has also agreed that the policy and guidance changes made in response to the pandemic over the past 12 months will now be reviewed, and decisions made as to whether to retain, amend or reverse them.
The definition agreed by VN Council is as follows:
Veterinary nursing aims to ease the suffering and pain of animals, and to improve their health and welfare.
This includes providing any medical treatment or any minor surgery (not involving entry into a body cavity) to animals under the direction of a veterinary surgeon who has that animal under their care.
Veterinary nursing can be either proactive or reactive, and autonomous or collaborative. It is carried out in a wide variety of settings, for animals at all life stages, and considers the background and needs of the animal’s owner or keeper.
Matthew Rendle RVN, the Chair of VN Council, said: “Although it is just a few short lines, this definition of veterinary nursing has been in the pipeline for some time.
"While we as veterinary nurses have always been able to define ourselves by the type of tasks we carry out, or our relation to veterinary surgeons in terms of delegation, there hasn’t necessarily been a clear statement articulating the art and science of veterinary nursing.
“With the RCVS looking to expand its regulatory remit to include other veterinary paraprofessionals over the long term, we thought it was particularly important that we set out the stall for veterinary nursing and we hope that this clear statement will, in particular, aid the public in understanding the role of a veterinary nurse.
“It should be noted that this definition is VN Council’s own considered interpretation of the art and science of veterinary nursing.
"Other interpretations from other organisations, provided they conform with both Schedule 3 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act and the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct, could sit comfortably alongside ours, and we hope there continues to be healthy discussion about the contribution of the profession to the veterinary team, as our role evolves.”
What do you think of the definition and do you think it will help change the public and the profession's perceptions. Have your say here: https://www.vetnurse.co.uk/001/f/nonclinical-discussions/32399/what-do-you-think-of-the-new-rcvs-vn-council-definition-of-the-role-of-vet-nurses
The annual renewal fee for veterinary nurses is due for payment on 1 November every year, although you have up to midnight on 31 December to pay before you're removed from the Register. The 409 veterinary nurses who failed to meet this payment deadline for last year were removed from the Register on 1 January 2020.
Of the 409 veterinary nurses who were removed for non-payment this year, 70 or so have subsequently applied for restoration to the Register, paying a £58 restoration fee, in addition to the standard renewal fee of £69.
The 409 removals represent 2.2% of the profession as a whole, which is down from the 2.7% removed last year.
A list of individuals removed from the Register on 1 January 2020, and who hadn’t been restored prior to 2 January at 11.30AM, has been published to help practices check their veterinary nursing staff are still on the Register.
Those with questions about how to restore to the Register should contact the RCVS Registration Department on 020 7202 0707 or registration@rcvs.org.uk.
For questions about paying the annual renewal fee or setting up a Direct Debit contact the RCVS Finance Department on 020 7202 0723 or finance@rcvs.org.uk.
The College sold the premises in March this year, with an option to lease it back for up to two years, giving time for Council to consider the future building requirements of the organisation and how they might have changed following the coronavirus pandemic.
Following easing of government restrictions this summer, the RCVS says that Council members and staff have started using the building for some meetings and day-to-day working, but occupancy has not yet returned to pre-pandemic levels.
RCVS Council therefore agreed at its meeting earlier this month that there is now a clear financial benefit to moving out at the first opportunity under the existing terms of lease.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS Chief Executive, said: “As we all gradually emerge from the restrictions of the past 18 months, one of the things we, as an organisation, have learned from the pandemic is that we can cope well with remote and hybrid working, whilst continuing to provide a high level of service to the professions and the animal-owning public.
“Retaining the use of our current offices over the last few months has certainly helped us to do this, but our Estates Strategy Group recommended to Council that there was now little to be gained and much to lose financially if we continued to lease Belgravia House for another year.”
“In the coming weeks, we will be drawing up detailed plans for the safe removal and storage of our effects, including the library, historical collection and archives, which are maintained by RCVS Knowledge.
"To support the team until we can move into a permanent building, we will hire serviced office space and meeting rooms around London and elsewhere in the UK as and when we need them.
“We also plan to take Council meetings ‘on the road’ over the next 12 months to enable Council members to engage with more veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses around the country.
“Meanwhile, we remain fully committed to the purchase of a new permanent London home for the RCVS and are seeking a building that not only meets the needs of the professions both now and well into the future, but also aims to be a sound financial investment for the College in the years ahead.”
Because of the pandemic, the College reduced the number of CPD hours required from 15 to 11 in 2020.
Nevertheless, it's still impressive that 92% of veterinary nurses who had their records audited had completed their CPD.
The data was gathered by the RCVS Education Department, which audited the records of 1,249 RVNs who had been registered and practising without a break for at least three years.
Jenny Soreskog-Turp, RCVS Lead for Postgraduate Education, said: “This is an incredibly impressive CPD compliance figure, especially considering all the challenges that vet nurses faced throughout 2020.
"I want to thank everyone that took part in our audit as this is a really important data source which helps us understand what the profession needs from us to help them complete their CPD.
“I know that sometimes vet nurses are unsure as to what counts towards their CPD target and often they discover that they’ve completed their CPD quota for the year without realising it.
"Things that take place within practice, like formal case discussions, clinical audits and in-house training, all count towards someone’s CPD target.
"If anyone is unsure as to what counts as CPD, I would encourage them to get in touch with the RCVS Education team and we’ll be happy to answer any questions.”
There is also a CPD guidance document available at: www.rcvs.org.uk/document-library/cpd-guidance-for-vns/
There is also guidance, including webinar recordings on topics including Workplace-based CPD and Reflecting on your CPD, available on the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/cpd
The Queen’s Medal - the highest honour that the RCVS can bestow upon an individual veterinary surgeon - was given to Dr Mary Stewart MRCVS, a retired academic who spent most of her career at the University of Glasgow where she was responsible for the development of the modern vet school.
Dr Stewart was nominated by Professor Stuart Reid, the Principal of the Royal Veterinary College and former Dean of the Glasgow Veterinary School. In his nomination he said: “Mary Stewart is one of the unsung heroes of the veterinary profession. A veterinarian graduating from Cornell in 1949, Mary has been MRCVS since 1951 and without doubt has been one of the major influencers of ethical approaches in the vet-client-patient environment and, in particular, the impact of euthanasia on both owners and attending veterinarians. Conducting nearly all her professional career in the UK, the vast majority at the University of Glasgow, Mary was of the generation selected by Sir William Weipers to create the modern school at Glasgow, an institution in which Mary played a pivotal role that would have reach nationally and internationally.”
The Inspiration Award is given to vets or nurses to recognise their ability to inspire and enthuse others consistently throughout his or her career. This year, it has been awarded to Dr Freda Scott-Park MRCVS. Freda is a former president of both the British Veterinary Association (BVA) and the British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA) as well as the current coordinator of the Highlands & Islands Veterinary Services Scheme and a campaigner for identifying the links between animal and other forms of abuse through The Links Group.
The Impact Award is given to vets and nurses who have recently made a considerable impact that has affected the profession at large, animal health or welfare, or public health. This year two Impact Awards have been bestowed. The first is to Dr Rosie Allister MRCVS, a leading campaigner and researcher for and about veterinary mental health, as well as a veterinary educator, the manager of the Vetlife Helpline and a member of the RCVS Mind Matters Initiative Taskforce.
The second Impact Award recipient is Hannah Capon MRCVS, the co-founder and director of Canine Arthritis Management (CAM), a self-funded social enterprise that provides advice to both other veterinary professionals and animal owners on the treatment and management of arthritis in dogs.
This year the RCVS is also awarding three Honorary Associateships, bestowed upon those who are not veterinary surgeons or veterinary nurses but who are making a considerable impact in the veterinary sphere, whether in the field of campaigning, charities, research, politics or journalism, for example.
This year’s first Honorary Associate is Professor Maureen Bain, Professor of Comparative Anatomy and Histology at the University of Glasgow’s Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health & Comparative Medicine, and an Associate of Glasgow Vet School who has dedicated her career to research on improving the quality and safety of eggs for human consumption.
The second Honorary Associate is Mike Flynn, the Chief Superintended of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SSPCA), for his collaborative work with the veterinary profession in areas such as the illegal puppy trade and the Links Group.
The third and final Honorary Associate is Professor Roberto La Ragione, the Deputy Head of the Surrey Vet School where he is also Professor of Veterinary Microbiology and Pathology and Head of the Department of Pathology and Infectious Diseases. Professor La Ragione was nominated for his contribution to veterinary education and research.
RCVS President Niall Connell (pictured right) said: “My hearty congratulations to all of this year’s award winners. Once again, it was a very strong field of people who have made and are making an indelible impact on veterinary science, the professions, animal health and welfare, food safety, public health, and plenty more besides."
Normally RCVS Awards & Honours are presented at Royal College Day in July. However, due to the coronavirus pandemic, the 2020 awards ceremony will instead be part of the proceedings of a combined Royal College Day and Fellowship Day, which will take at the Royal Institution on 2 October 2020. This event may be subject to cancellation and postponement depending on the latest Government advice and restrictions on the prevention of transmission of coronavirus.
VN Council set up a special OSCE Taskforce in April this year to draw up proposals for an alternative to the OSCEs which would allow students and examiners to practise social distancing and remain safe.
While some awarding organisations and universities have since developed methods of holding their OSCEs within social distancing guidelines, others have had to cancel the OSCEs indefinitely on the grounds it would not be safe or practical to hold them.
In response, the Taskforce developed a new ‘Patient-based Assessment’ (PBA) method, which was approved by VN Council at its meeting last Wednesday, which will allow student veterinary nurses to prove they meet the Day One Competences and Skills, making them eligible to join the Register.
Racheal Marshall, Chair of VN Council (pictured right), said: “After much hard work, deliberation and consideration over a number of different options, we have developed an alternative assessment method for student veterinary nurses that is safe and complies with the social distancing guidelines, while still upholding our standards and ensuring student veterinary nurses are competent to join the Register.
"The alternative, called a Patient-based Assessment, will involve building up a small portfolio of case reports and supporting evidence to prove how those who use this assessment method meet the Day One Competences and Skills. Once this has been signed-off and submitted, students using this assessment method will undertake a detailed and structured discussion about their involvement with the cases they have described.
"There will be two examiners present for the interview, however, students will only have to discuss their cases with one of them. The outcome of the discussion will determine whether students can be awarded their licence to practise qualification and subsequently apply to join the RCVS Register of Veterinary Nurses."
The alternative assessment method may not be relevant to all student veterinary nurses as they may have an awarding body or university that has decided it can safely hold its OSCEs under the current conditions, or they may be training through the apprenticeship route. Those who are unsure whether this assessment method is applicable to them should contact their educational establishment for further advice and clarification.
Racheal added: “We recognise the difficulties student veterinary nurses have faced and that this has been an unsettling time, so we are pleased that the taskforce and VN Council has come together to develop a workable and deliverable alternative.”
A detailed handbook containing further information about the criteria and process for the Patient-based Assessment has been published on the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/document-library/veterinary-nurse-patient-based-assessment-student-handbook.
It is recommended all student veterinary nurses read this to get a full understanding of how the assessment method will work. The RCVS Veterinary Nursing Department can also be contacted on VNPBA@rcvs.org.uk
Veterinary Nurses Day was held at London Zoo to welcome new members of the profession, award Diplomas and celebrate the achievements of one of its longest-serving members.
During the ceremony, Rachael Marshall, Chair of Veterinary Nurses Council, led the newly registered nurses through their professional declarations while the President of the RCVS, Dr Niall Connell presented each new veterinary nurse a scroll containing the text of their declarations.
Before leading the declarations, Racheal said: "I would encourage you all to take control of your career and find areas where you can take the lead, whether this be within your practice or by contributing to the wider profession.
"Sticking your head above the parapet can be scary and often daunting, however, the satisfaction of challenging yourself and achieving things outside of your comfort zone is all the more rewarding.
"Remember this is a career for life. However you choose to use your qualification always be rightly proud to stand tall and say ‘I am a veterinary nurse’."
The College hosted two separate ceremonies, one in the morning and afternoon, and around 175 new veterinary nurses collected their scrolls, as well as nine RVNs who had achieved their DipAVNs. Also being recognised at the event with a lifetime achievement award was Deborah Holland who qualified as a ‘registered animal nursing auxiliary’ (or RANA) in 1981 and has seen first-hand how the profession has changed and adapted over the last 40 years.
Racheal added: “It was not until 1984 that a change in the law allowed the use of the title of veterinary nurse, and a further 30 years until a new Royal Charter in 2015 formally granted the status of associates of the RCVS, making veterinary nursing a regulated profession in its own right. Last year a change in the governance of the RCVS Council has allowed two veterinary nurses to become members of Council, which further demonstrates the solid recognition of the importance of the VN role, which this day aims to highlight and celebrate.”
In his closing speech for both sessions, RCVS President Niall Connell spoke of the challenges of veterinary work and the importance of reaching out to your peers and colleagues in times of need.
Niall said: “Talk to colleagues, talk to friends and support each other. More than ever our veterinary professions are closer together so you should never feel you are alone. If you need advice, seek it. There are so many people you can ask, colleagues, your associations and you will always be welcome to call the College for advice on professional conduct, CPD and other issues.”
The Disciplinary Committee heard three charges against Dr Jones.
The first and second charges were that, in March 2018, Dr Jones made signed entries in the passports and made corresponding entries in clinical records of four horses indicating that he had administered an influenza vaccination booster to each horse on 15 March 2018 and in relation to another horse a tetanus booster, when in fact he had administered the vaccination boosters on 21 March 2018, and that his conduct was misleading, dishonest and undermined the integrity of a vaccination process designed to promote animal welfare.
The third charge was that, on or around 21 March 2018, Dr Jones failed to make any entries in the clinical records for a horse in relation to an examination on 21 March 2018.
At the outset of the hearing Dr Jones admitted the facts in the first and second charges, and accepted that his actions were misleading, dishonest and that they undermined the integrity of a vaccination process. However, he disputed certain aspects of the written statements of the College’s witnesses. In particular he wanted his conduct to be taken in the context of the pressures that he was working under on that day, primarily that he was in a stressed state having had to euthanase a valuable stallion at the conclusion of his previous client appointment.
Dr Jones did not admit the third charge, explaining that he did not remember examining the horse on 21 March 2018 as alleged.
Based on Dr Jones' own admissions, the Committee found the first and second charges proven.
Regarding the third charge, the Committee heard evidence from the horse’s owner who said they were present during the examination taking place and the Committee was satisfied that the respondent did examine the horse on 21 March 2018 and that he had a duty to make a brief clinical note on the examination. As Dr Jones admitted that he made no such note, the Committee found the charge to have been proven to the requisite standard.
Having found the charges proven, the Committee then went on to consider whether or not Dr Jones’ proven conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct. The Committee, having considered the aggravating and mitigating factors, found that Dr Jones’ conduct as found proved in relation to both charges one and two, did constitute serious professional misconduct.
However, with regards to charge three, the Committee accepted that the respondent simply forgot that he had examined the horse and, therefore, the Committee was not satisfied that the failure to compile a record entry covering the horse’s examination constituted serious professional misconduct.
The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Dr Jones in relation to the facts found proven in charges one and two. In doing so it took into account the 78 written testimonials and 4 character witnesses called on behalf of Dr Jones.
Ian Green, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: "The Committee’s decision on sanction has been based on an acceptance that the respondent’s conduct on this occasion was out-of-character, as the evidence of his character witnesses and the contents of the letters submitted in his support by his clients and other veterinary colleagues assert. The Committee also accepts that the respondent self-reported himself to his employer and to the College and has made a full and frank admission of his wrongdoing.
"Consideration was given to whether the sanction of a reprimand and/or warning as to future conduct would adequately reflect the gravity of the misconduct, however, after careful reflection it was concluded that such a sanction could not be justified. The reason is that acts of falsification involve acts of dishonesty by a professional person acting in a professional capacity, and the gravity of the matter arises not simply from the dishonesty but also from the possible consequences of the false certification. It should be clearly understood by members of the veterinary profession that, in appropriate false certification cases, the sanction of removal from the Register is one which may well be imposed."
The Committee therefore decided that suspending Dr Jones from the Register for two months would be the most appropriate sanction.
Musculoskeletal therapists currently have their work underpinned by an Exemption Order to the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 which allows them to treat an animal under the direction of a veterinary surgeon who has first examined that animal.
The College says it has recognised that there has been confusion over whether musculoskeletal therapists need a veterinary referral for maintenance work, such as massage, in a healthy animal. This may lead to delays in animals receiving maintenance care.
The new guidance, found in Chapter 19 (www.rcvs.org.uk/unqualified) of the supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct, sets out the existing rules for musculoskeletal treatment of illness, disease or pathology, and clarifies that healthy animals do not need a veterinary referral for maintenance care.
The guidance stresses that musculoskeletal therapists are part of the vet-led team, and that any animal, including healthy ones, should be registered with a veterinary surgeon and referred to a vet at the first sign of any symptoms that may suggest underlying health issues.
The guidance also says that vets should be confident that the musculoskeletal therapist is appropriately qualified; indicators of this can include membership of a voluntary regulatory body with a register of practitioners, and associated standards of education and conduct, supported by a complaints and disciplinary process.
In March 2019 the RCVS published the Review of Minor Procedures Regime (www.rcvs.org.uk/document-library/report-to-defra-on-the-review-of-minor-procedures-regime-and/) which noted that the existing exemption order was not suitable for underpinning the work of musculoskeletal therapists, and recommended that this be remedied by reform of Schedule 3 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, alongside regulation by the RCVS through Associate status for musculoskeletal therapists.
This would allow the RCVS to set and uphold standards for musculoskeletal therapists in a similar way to veterinary nurses, giving further assurance to both the veterinary professions and the public. The recent Legislation Working Party Report recommendations builds on that recommendation, and is currently open for consultation at www.rcvs.org.uk/consultations
The Disciplinary Committee heard that the offence took place in 2013, when Dr Surdila was not a registered veterinary surgeon.
However she pleaded guilty to the charge in 2019, by which time she was.
Dr Surdila testified that in 2010, she and her family owned a few beehives and applied for EU funding to help expand their operation into a business.
A requirement of the funding was that Dr Surdila and her sister belong to a licensed bee-keeping co-operative.
They joined their local co-operative, and paid a consultant to manage their funding application.
Three years later, their consultant switched Dr Surdila and her sister to a different cooperative, for reasons they did not understand.
After another three years or so, Dr Surdila's family decided to close the business because she was at university and the others had other commitments.
Dr Surdila later moved to the UK and joined a practice in Motherwell, Scotland.
Then, in 2019, when Dr Surdila had been in the UK for four years, it transpired that the second co-operative they had joined was unlicensed and they had therefore not been entitled to received funds from the EU, and would be prosecuted by the National Department of Anti-Corruption.
Meanwhile, the consultant they had paid to manage their funding application had died.
Dr Surdila stated that everything she had signed for the unlicensed co-op had been signed in good faith, but she was advised by her lawyer that as she had signed legally binding documents for the funding, and because the consultant had died, her only option was to plead guilty.
She was sentenced to two years imprisonment, suspended for two years, 60 days of community service and was required to pay 19,544.7 Romanian Lei (approximately £3,300) in damages.
Her lawyer advised her to appeal her sentence which was harsh considering the circumstances.
However, the appeal was postponed several times because of Covid-19 and was ultimately unsuccessful.
In concluding whether the conviction rendered Dr Surdila unfit to practise, Mrs Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Dr Surdila’s conviction was of a nature and seriousness that required a finding that she was unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon on public interest grounds”.
The Committee then turned to sanction and in reaching its decision, Mrs Way said: “This was a serious conviction with a significant sentence, involving an element of bad faith.
"The Committee considered it important to mark this behaviour in some way because Dr Surdila should have been more cognisant of what she was signing.
“The Committee noted that her offending behaviour took place a significantly long time ago, when Dr Surdila was young and inexperienced and before she had qualified as a veterinary surgeon.
"There had never been a risk to animals or the public, she had demonstrated significant insight into her failures and exhibited genuine remorse.
"The Committee was satisfied that it was highly unlikely she would ever commit such an offence again.
“In light of the lack of aggravating factors and the extensive mitigation in this case, the Committee concluded that it was appropriate and proportionate to reprimand Dr Surdila and to warn her of the need to ensure she reads and understands all documents that require her signature.”
The Committee’s full findings can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The charge against Dr Irvine was that in July 2017, he failed to discuss with the owners alternative treatment options to dental surgery under general anaesthetic, or the risks of dental surgery under general anaesthetic, and failed to obtain informed consent from the owners for the surgery.
Dr Vasilev was also originally charged with failing to discuss alternative treatment options or the risks of the surgery and failing to obtain informed consent. However, at the outset of the hearing, as a result of new information which came to light, the RCVS opted to offer no evidence in relation to these charges. Mr Vasilev was separately charged with failing to maintain clear, accurate and detailed clinical records in relation to his treatment of the dog.
At the outset of the hearing, Mr Irvine denied all aspects of the charge against him; while Dr Vasilev admitted all aspects of the remaining charge.
The Committee heard how Rupert's dental surgery under general anaesthetic was recommended by Mr Irvine on 10th July and performed by Dr Vasilev on 11th July 2017. After the surgery, Rupert was discharged, but vomited in his sleep that same night. He was brought back to the practice on 12th July, where Dr Vasilev administered antiemetic and antibiotic medication.
However, Rupert continued to vomit over the next five days, and was seen by the practice on 17th July and then on 18th when blood tests were conducted. Rupert’s condition deteriorated as he continued to vomit and lose weight and he was brought back to the practice on 22nd July where he was euthanased by Dr Vasilev.
The Committee heard evidence from Rupert’s owners as well as two expert witnesses. It found the first aspect of the charge against Mr Irvine proven on the basis that there was an inadequate discussion with the owners regarding the option of delaying the dental treatment on Rupert because of his recent ascites caused by congestive heart failure.
The Committee found the second aspect of the charge against Mr Irvine proven on the basis that he had not discussed the risks of Rupert undergoing general anaesthetic given the recent diagnosis of congestive heart failure, following which (in relation to the third aspect of the charge against Mr Irvine), it was therefore found proven that he had failed to gain informed consent.
With all aspects of the charge against Mr Irvine being proven, and with Dr Vasilev admitting the charge against him, the Committee went on to consider if the proven and admitted charges against both amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In respect of Mr Irvine, Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee was not persuaded that the failure to obtain informed consent from [the owner] and discuss matters further with her on 10th July 2017 in the circumstances of this case would amount to serious professional misconduct which would bring the profession into disrepute.
"In the Committee’s judgment, the breach of standards, whilst amounting to professional misconduct, was not serious professional misconduct, in the context of other discussions which had taken place…. The Committee further decided that a finding of serious professional misconduct in this case would be disproportionate having taken into consideration the discussions that Mr Irvine had with [the owner] prior to 10th July 2017 and the fact he was dealing with a complex and changing case.
"The Committee therefore found that Mr Irvine was not guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
The Committee noted that Dr Vasilev had admitted breaching the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons in respect of failing to keep adequate clinical and client records.
However, in mitigation, the Committee considered a number of factors including that, in failing to maintain adequate notes related to Rupert’s treatment, Dr Vasilev had followed the standard of notetaking in the practice as set out by Mr Irvine who was practice principal; that Dr Vasilev had only worked with Mr Irvine in the UK and his record-keeping was limited to working in one practice; that Dr Vasilev admitted his failures at an early stage of the proceedings; that he had made efforts to avoid repetition in the future by undertaking webinars and research; and, that he had shown insight into the need to ensure full communication and detailed note-taking.
Stuart Drummond added: "In relation to Dr Vasilev, the Committee was satisfied that [his] standard of record-keeping was in breach of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons and that the breach… amounted to professional misconduct.
"The Committee concluded that the breaches overall, when considering the context and number of mitigating factors, were, in the Committee’s view, insufficient to amount to serious professional misconduct…. Accordingly it found Dr Vasilev not guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
The full facts and findings from the case can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.
The award categories that someone can be nominated for are:
The closing date for the awards is Friday, 7 January 2022.
For more information, visit www.rcvs.org.uk/awards.
Called the RCVS Academy, the new platform offers training in the following areas:
The College says the content has been developed in partnership with members of the profession to make sure it meets the needs of the veterinary team, including new graduates and registrants, and those who have been in the profession for many years.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS Chief Executive, said: “As part of our ambition to be a compassionate regulator, we would like to ensure that all veterinary professionals have access to learning resources that will help them meet the standards set by their peers on RCVS Council.
"We’re aware of the pressures that veterinary professions are facing and the Academy has been built to respond to changing learning needs.
“The learning resources available on the platform have been designed to help vet teams develop their understanding of the RCVS professional guidelines and also how they can apply them in their everyday role. "
https://academy.rcvs.org.uk/
As part of its review, the College had planned a series of focus groups of veterinary surgeons and nurses across the UK. However, these have had to be delayed both because of social distancing rules and because of the pressures that practice teams are currently working under. However, the agency tasked with hosting the focus groups is now exploring alternative options and it is hoped there will be a revised timetable soon.
In the meantime, the College says it now plans to commission an additional independent agency to survey veterinary surgeons about their experience of remote prescribing during lockdown.
In March, RCVS Council agreed to temporarily allow veterinary surgeons to prescribe prescription-only veterinary medicines remotely, without first having physically examined the animal, subject to a number of conditions and safeguards being in place.
This position is due for review by 30th June, and the College will be looking for feedback and data from veterinary surgeons about your experience of remote prescribing, in order to determine whether these arrangements can continue, with or without any extra safeguards.
Because remote prescribing is also one of the most important aspects of the planned under care review, feedback gathered now will help inform future discussions too.
RCVS President Niall Connell said: “We recognise the current conditions that veterinary practices are working under in no way represent normal practice life. Most practices will not have been set up to offer remote services and remote prescribing in a way that they might have chosen, given sufficient time and appropriate detailed guidance, if indeed there are any future guidance changes after the review.
"However, we feel it would be remiss of us not to seize the opportunity arising from this current crisis to ask about the experiences – good or bad – of those on the frontline of clinical veterinary practice in providing remote services to their clients.
"Whilst this will be no substitute for the formal evidence gathered by the research agency in due course, whatever data and feedback we can collate from veterinary practices at this unique time for our professions will, I’m sure, be extremely valuable to our ongoing discussions."
In next year's election, there are two places on Council for elected veterinary nurses, with successful candidates serving three year terms.
The nomination period runs until 5pm on Friday 31 January 2020. In order to stand, candidates need to complete a nomination form, submit a short biography and personal statement and supply a high resolution digital photo.
Each candidate also needs to have two nominators who need to be veterinary nurses who are on the RCVS Register but are not current RCVS Council members.
The College says nominations will be particularly welcome for VN Council as, due to governance changes, no election took place in 2018 and there was also no election in 2019, because only two candidates stood for the two available places.
Racheal Marshall, Chair of VN Council, said: "Although we are delighted with the two VN Council members who came on board this year, I think all would agree that it was a shame that there was no opportunity for the profession to exercise their democratic right and cast a vote for their preferred candidates.
"Being a member of VN Council and, latterly, its Chair has been a professional highlight for me – I have helped shape recommendations for how we can take the profession forward through the VN Futures project, have played a part in developing the postgraduate Certificates in Advanced Veterinary Nursing and have welcomed many new veterinary nurses to the Register by taking them through their professional declarations.
"We know that veterinary nurses sometimes feel that they struggle to be seen and heard – being a member of VN Council who can shape policy on education and professional conduct and attend events as an ambassador for the profession all helps give veterinary nursing the voice it deserves. So please consider standing for VN Council and I am very happy to talk to people about what it involves and how to fit it around your work and life."
Veterinary nurses who wish to find out more about becoming a candidate for VN Council can arrange an informal conversation with Racheal by contacting Annette Amato, VN Council Secretary, on a.amato@rcvs.org.uk
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer said: "As always, we would encourage those who are interested in having their say in some of the key debates in the regulatory sphere, such as our under care review, our policies around the impact of Brexit and our vision for new veterinary legislation, to become a candidate.
"RCVS Council is at its best when it encompasses a broad range of perspectives, experiences and knowledge, and so we encourage people from all areas of veterinary life and all levels of experience to put themselves forward and share their expertise and insight."
Nomination forms, guidance notes and frequently asked questions for prospective RCVS VN Council candidates can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/vncouncil20.
Prospective candidates for Council are welcome to contact the Registrar, Eleanor Ferguson (e.ferguson@rcvs.org.uk) and the RCVS CEO, Lizzie Lockett (l.lockett@rcvs.org.uk) for more information about the role of the College and/or Council.
RCVS Council will also be holding its next public meeting on Thursday 23 January 2020, prior to the closure date for Council candidate nominations. Prospective candidates are welcome to attend the Council meeting as an observer. Contact Dawn Wiggins, RCVS Council Secretary, on d.wiggins@rcvs.org.uk if you wish to attend.