View all veterinary jobs
The annual renewal fee for veterinary nurses to remain on the RCVS Register/List of Veterinary Nurses is due.
Both registered and listed veterinary nurses need to pay the annual renewal fee of £61 by 1 November 2014. All veterinary nurses need to confirm their Register/List details and correspondence address; registered veterinary nurses will also need to declare any convictions and confirm that they have complied with the RCVS requirement for continuing professional development (CPD) of 45 hours over a three-year period.
Any registered or listed veterinary nurses who have not paid their annual renewal fee by 31 December 2014 will be removed from the Register/List of Veterinary Nurses.
This year both registered and listed veterinary nurses can pay their annual renewal fee and manage their details at www.rcvs.org.uk/login. A list of Frequently Asked Questions about the registration process can also be found on the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/vnfaq.
Security details for accessing the 'My Account' area have been sent to all registered and listed veterinary nurses. Any veterinary nurses who have not received their annual renewal fee letter or login details by 1 October 2014 should contact the RCVS Registration Department on 020 7202 0707.
As of April this year, the annual renewal fee for registered and listed veterinary nurses has also been classed as a tax deductible expense. Details of how to claim income tax relief on expenses are available from the HM Revenue & Customs website (www.hmrc.gov.uk).
Veterinary nurses in need of further guidance on paying their annual renewal fee should contact the RCVS Finance Department on finance@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0723.
The Royal College has announced the winners of the 2009 RCVS Council and VN Council elections.
This year, a special elections section was set up here on VetNurse.co.uk and on VetSurgeon.org for members to engage directly with candidates in a members forum, or directly using the social networking features on both sites. In the interests of promoting democracy, the sites offered a case of champagne to the voter who started the forum discussion which generated the greatest number of responses. Over the course of the voting period, these sections received over 23,000 page views, 53 questions for candidates, and 650 responses.
Arlo Guthrie, Editor of VetNurse.co.uk and VetSurgeon.org said: "I think it's great that the candidates agreed to try this. They could have said no, and stuck with the traditional methods of communication (which are more of a known quantity). Instead, they really got stuck in to some interesting and at times lively debate. My sincere thanks to all candidates and congratulations to the winners. And I raise my glass to Princess Ophelia Hermione MacBeth, who wins the case of champagne for starting the discussion thread which generated the greatest response from other members"
The VN Council elections saw a 25% increase in voters over last year, with 912 out of a possible 8,108 VNs casting a vote. This was an 11.2% turnout. The results were as follows:
JEFFERY, Andrea Karen. 604 votes. Elected GLYSEN, Louise. 332 votes. Elected WILLIAMS, Caroline Mary. 312 votes.IVES, Cheryl Diana. 236 votes.
Louse Glysen is the new VN Council Member (again, officially joining at RCVS Day) and Andrea Jeffery will begin her eighth year, having been the Council's chairman for the past four years.
Voting in the RCVS Council election increased from 17% to 18.2% this year, with 4,041 veterinary surgeons out of a possible 22,201 casting a vote. The results are as follows:
NUTE, Patricia Jill. 2,467 votes. Elected JINMAN, Peter. 2,346 votes. Elected GRAY, Christopher John. 2,230 votes. Elected DAVIES, Jeremy Vincent. 2,229 votes. Elected VINER, Bradley. 2,123 votes. Elected TUFNELL, Christopher Wynne. 2,088 votes. Elected SWAYNE, Nigel. 1,673 votes. McDOWELL, David Michael. 1,394 votes.LONSDALE, Thomas. 389 votes.
The new Council members are Christopher Gray and Christopher Tufnell, who will officially join Council at RCVS Day on 3 July 2009.
The College highlights the following key changes:
The RCVS says the new corporate look is designed to be fresh, uncluttered and professional, and the new RCVS logo and strapline - "setting veterinary standards" - should leave visitors in no doubt as to the key purpose of the RCVS as a regulatory body. And whilst the new identity is modern in feel, the use of a shield device aims to maintain the link with the College's long history.
According to the College, the new brand was described by the veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who helped to develop it as "simple, clear and clean, with a strong message" and "modern and approachable".
President Peter Jinman said: "The College has been accused of being 'confused and confusing' in the past. With the new identity we have endeavoured to clarify that the College is a forward-thinking regulator - despite being established when Queen Victoria was only recently on the throne, and working to 45-year-old legislation.
"Changing the logo, font and colours we use is only a small part of the process though. Our branding review included several layers of research and we now have a better understanding of how we have been perceived, how we would like to be perceived, and what we need to do to get there. This includes changing how we behave and communicate as an organisation, as well as how we position ourselves to the outside world."
The new look, which includes new logos for RCVS Awards, the RCVS Charitable Trust and the Practice Standards Scheme, will be rolled out across other communications elements as the year unfolds, to avoid the unnecessary wastage of materials branded with the old identity.
Meanwhile, the website is a living medium, and the College says it is keen to hear feedback from users about what they like, and what could be improved, to help inform further developments.
The blog is part of a mental health anti-stigma campaign called '&me', being run jointly by the RCVS and the Doctor's Support Network.
&me encourages people within healthcare professions to come forward with their personal mental health stories, to demonstrate that mental health issues do not preclude people from achieving leading roles in healthcare.
Mind Matters Manager, Lisa Quigley said: "By reducing stigma and showing that it is possible to continue to flourish in your career no matter where you are on the mental health continuum, our &Me role models help those who are not yet seeking help or who are struggling with their diagnosis to speak to appropriate people.
"We often talk about veterinary surgeons’ mental health and the wider prevalence of mental health issues within the veterinary professions. We are incredibly pleased to have our first VN &me ambassador and this blog will hopefully open the way for other veterinary nurses at all stages of their careers to talk more openly about their mental health to trusted people and healthcare professionals. We thank its author, Meg Conroy, for her bravery in stepping forward to talk about her own experiences."
Meg said: "In January 2018 I was promoted to Head Nurse for the Hub of practices and had volunteered for British Small Animal Veterinary Association Southern region and Congress committee. I felt on top of the world. I was married in July 2018, the best day of my life. But then suddenly, my black dog was upon me. Everything from the last eighteen months crashed down on me like a tsunami. Everything I had pushed to the back of my mind came flooding back. This is when I truly started to change how I viewed my mental health.
"Before it was a dark, damning secret that I was ashamed of. Now I had supportive colleagues who genuinely just wanted me to get better. After five weeks off work, medication and starting counselling, I was ready to give work another go. I remember taking my first blood sample, shaking and tears filling my eyes. I didn’t think I would ever be whole again. Eight months on from my last episode, I feel stronger than ever, I fought every day until one day it became easier.
"We talk often about what our mental health takes away from us, but what has my mental health given me? It’s given me a greater understanding and empathy towards others. My mental health is a part of me, but it does not define me. Certainly not as a nurse."
Meg’s full blog can be found on the Mind Matters website.
The RCVS is still looking for more ambassadors for the Mind Matters &Me campaign. If you're interested in joining the campaign, you should first contact Dr Louise Freeman, Vice-Chair of the Doctors’ Support Network, on vicechair@dsn.org.uk, for a discussion about the potential personal impact.
Chris has been an elected member of Council since 2009 and, during this time, has served on the Education Committee, the Examinations Appeal Committee and the Operational Board as Chair of the Education Committee and Junior Vice-President.
He graduated with a veterinary degree from the University of Glasgow at the relatively advanced age of 30 having first attained a degree in Agricultural and Environmental Science from the University of Newcastle. Following graduation he worked in a mixed practice in Herefordshire before buying an equine and companion animal practice in West Berkshire, which currently employs five veterinary surgeons and five support staff.
In his maiden speech, Chris called on veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses to be proud of themselves as people who are committed to the welfare of animals in their care and to not be so hard on themselves.
He also outlined several areas that he would like to prioritise during his presidential year. These included delivering the priorities set out in the Vet Futures Action Plan, exploring bringing veterinary paraprofessionals into the College’s regulatory remit, driving forward the College’s international profile and dealing with blame and fear culture in the profession.
He said: "I’ve seen first-hand in Africa and India what the delivery of veterinary care can do for the welfare of animals in these regions and the wellbeing of people that frequently depend upon them. As one of the richest nations in the world we will further investigate what we can do, through knowledge transfer and support, to help raise the standards of veterinary care in developing countries.
"Sadly we often hear that there are vets and nurses who live in fear of the RCVS. This is something of which I am personally ashamed. Being particularly mindful of the role that fear and anxiety play in mental health, I will do everything I can to replace this fear... I will encourage all hardworking vets and nurses, whichever field they are in, to wear their [MRCVS] ‘badge’ with pride. Feel good about what you do, feel great about what you do."
Chris’ first official duty upon receiving the presidential chain of office from outgoing President Dr Bradley Viner, was to welcome the new Junior Vice-President Professor Stephen May. He also praised Bradley for his calm authority, humour and wisdom throughout his year as RCVS President.
Lowestoft vet Frank Eric Ainsworth MRCVS has received a severe reprimand and warning as to future conduct from the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after being found guilty of serious professional misconduct.
The charge against Mr Ainsworth was that in July 2013, he failed to provide adequate care to Ash, a dog presented to him whilst he was working as a locum at Pinebank Veterinary Surgery in Kent.
Specifically, the charge was that having diagnosed Ash with heatstroke, Mr Ainsworth failed to admit the dog to the practice for urgent treatment, failed to transfer the dog to another practice, failed to suggest euthanasia, and failed to offer the owner, Mr McMahon, adequate treatment advice.
On presentation to Mr Ainsworth at Pinebank between 7am and 8am, Ash was collapsed and his symptoms included diarrhoea, vomiting, lethargy and a high temperature.
On being told that Ash had heatstroke and was unlikely to survive, Mr McMahon asked Mr Ainsworth whether anything could be done to save him, but was told the practice did not have the necessary treatment facilities. Mr McMahon was advised to take Ash home and use cold running water, ice packs and fans to reduce his temperature.
After Mr McMahon took Ash home and showered him in cold water, his wife telephoned Pinebank to complain. The practice receptionist, Ms Baldock, confirmed to her that there was nothing they could do.
Mrs McMahon asked if her husband could take Ash to Pinebank's out-of-hours service provider, but was told this was not an option.
Eventually, Mr McMahon took Ash to an alternative practice, Sandhole Vets, where the dog was treated by the practice owner, Mr Johnson. Mr McMahon was told that Ash was unlikely to survive and that, if there was no improvement, he should consider euthanasia. Around 45 minutes after the treatment was started, Ash suffered seizures and died shortly thereafter.
Mr Ainsworth told the Committee that he did not think Pinebank had adequate facilities to treat a dog of Ash's size for heatstroke and was unaware that it had a hosepipe and watering can. In addition, he did not believe it would be practical and effective to reduce Ash's temperature with wet towels and considered that the main priority of reducing the temperature would be best done at home.
Mr Ainsworth told the Committee that he intended to make enquiries about referring Ash to another practice once his temperature had been reduced at home. He was about to search the internet for alternative practices when he overheard his colleague's phone conversation with Mrs McMahon and assumed that Ash had been taken to another practice.
Mr Ainsworth accepted that he did not discuss euthanasia with Mr McMahon, which he said he would have done at a later stage if Ash's condition did not improve. He also accepted that he made no further enquiries of Ms Baldock and did not telephone Mr McMahon to check if Ash had gone to another practice.
Before reaching its decision the Committee considered, in detail, the testimony of a number of witnesses and experts for both the College and Mr Ainsworth. It rejected Mr Ainsworth's evidence that his treatment plan was to follow up his investigations into Ash's case or contact Mr McMahon by telephone. It concluded that, if such a plan had been in place, he would have informed Mr McMahon of his intentions.
The Committee also rejected Mr Ainsworth's evidence that he had overheard the conversation between Ms Baldock and Mrs McMahon. It said it was not credible that, if he had heard the call, that he would not have made further enquiries.
The Committee found the charges proven. For example, it concluded that Mr Ainsworth should have made further enquiries about the treatment facilities available at the practice for cooling Ash and, if he felt that they were inadequate, should have advised Mr McMahon to take the dog to another practice. It also felt it was inappropriate for Mr Ainsworth to have sent Ash home to the care of his owners while in a critical condition without first seeking the option of referral.
Furthermore, the Committee felt that Mr Ainsworth should have given Mr McMahon the full range of treatment options available, including oxygen and fluids as Ash was in a collapsed state, before he left the practice, as well as discussing euthanasia.
However, the Committee did accept, on the basis of Mr Ainsworth's clinical records, that he had given advice to Mr McMahon on how Ash could be cooled down at home, although it felt the advice could have been more detailed.
In deciding its sanction for Mr Ainsworth the Committee accepted that his actions were not motivated by indifference to animal welfare but that, on this occasion, there was a serious lapse of judgment.
The Committee also considered that this was a single incident on Mr Ainsworth's first day at the practice and that he had been confronted with an emergency situation before the practice had opened. It accepted that Mr Ainsworth had an unblemished career over the past 38 years and that he had produced character references from other veterinary surgeons attesting his integrity, skill and conscientiousness.
Judith Webb, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee has concluded that the sanction proportionate to Mr Ainsworth's conduct is one of severe reprimand and warning as to his future conduct."
She added: "The Committee considers that veterinary surgeons are required to be proactive in their duty of care and refer cases when they do not have the ability to deal with cases appropriately."
The Committee also recommended that Mr Ainsworth should undertake, in the next 12 months, continuing professional development with an emphasis on emergency and critical care and client communication.
The Committee's full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
The 2009 RCVS Continuing Professional Development Record Cards have been sent to all practising vets and Registered Veterinary Nurses.
Undertaking and recording Continuous Professional Development (CPD) is a mandatory professional requirement for these vets and RVNs. Vets must average at least 35 hours of CPD per year and RVNs 15 hours, although many will do far more.
The RCVS can ask to see CPD records - and they may be checked during practice inspections as part of the Practice Standards Scheme. For newly-qualified veterinary surgeons, completing the Professional Development Phase also fulfils the CPD requirements in their first year of practice.
Jill Nute, President of the RCVS, said: "CPD is about maintaining professional competence. Vets and RVNs are expected to make continuous improvements in their knowledge and skills, which will have benefits for their patients and clients, their own development and the profession at large. Undertaking CPD allows vets and RVNs to demonstrate their commitment to maintaining the highest professional standards."
As professionals, vets and RVNs are expected to evaluate what knowledge and skills they need to develop, and how they will do this. This may include activities such as going to particular case-conferences or asking for some in-house training. Getting together with other practices to organise training sessions or secondments or finding a mentor can also be useful.
Personal study - documented in a learning diary detailing the aims of the study, what was studied and the outcomes, for example, a change made to a practice protocol - can also be used. There is no limit on properly documented study, but vets cannot count more than 10 hours, and veterinary nurses five hours, each year of undocumented study.
All CPD activity should be systematically planned to meet identified professional needs, and clear records must be kept of what has been done.
Further information about CPD requirements for veterinary surgeons and Registered Veterinary Nurses can be found on the back of the CPD Record Card, and at RCVSonline (www.rcvs.org.uk).
Veterinary Nurse Sarah Hancill has won the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Charitable Trust’s 'Driving Practice Innovation' competition, with her peripheral venous catheter care checklist.Sarah's competition submission reads as follows:"Peripheral venous catheters are used to administer medication directly into the venous system for rapid distribution to the whole body, and also to deliver fluid therapy and nutritional support to the patient."The rationale behind the creation of the checklist is that, although intravenous catheter insertion has become common practice, breaking the skin barrier alters the hosts’ defence against infection, which increases the risk of local infection or bacteraemia with more serious complications such as septicaemia. This causes concern for patient safety."The peripheral venous catheter care checklist is intended to increase patient safety. It consists of 14 quality indicators, repeated every 24 hours over a 72 hour period."This timing allows for objective assessment of clinical performance for insertion and management of the peripheral intravenous catheters."Examples of the interventions included are: appropriate hand hygiene is followed before handling the patient; an assessment of the appearance of catheter insertion site; and the timely removal of the catheter."Each day the veterinary nurse or veterinary surgeon caring for the patient should complete each intervention and record their findings on the checklist provided."This can then be used as a tool for communicating between staff any problems with the catheter. It can also be used to collect data on what interventions are being completed."It is hoped that the checklist will be valued by veterinary nurses as a practical tool to care for patients who need an intravenous catheter placed as part of their treatment."It has an additional use as an educational tool to enable students to understand the correct protocol for caring for an intravenous catheter."Sarah has a BSc (Hons) in Veterinary Nursing from the Royal Veterinary College where she gained her foundation degree in veterinary nursing before becoming an RVN in 2011.Her prize was £100 in shopping vouchers which she intends to spend on a pair of netball shoes. “Playing netball helps me to deal with the stresses of being a veterinary nurse,” she says.
In total Mr Hendrie Smith had faced eight charges against him, all of which related to him undertaking the euthanasia of a German Shepherd named Bouncer during a home visit in January 2017.
The charges alleged that when John Hendrie Smith undertook the euthanasia of Bouncer he had:
1. failed to ensure he was sufficiently prepared for the euthanasia in that he failed to attend the visit with a muzzle and failed to attend with any sedative and the means of administering sedative;
2. failed to delay the euthanasia until he was in possession of the above items;
3. undertook the euthanasia by means of an injection without first sedating Bouncer;
4. failed to provide Bouncer’s owner with an adequate explanation of the procedure. Including:
a. failing to explain that the procedure involved an attempt at injection directly into the heart;
b. failing to explain that an injection into the heart without sedation is (except in extreme circumstances) not an accepted means of euthanasia;
c. wrongly stated that Bouncer would not feel the injection;
d. failed to provide an explanation of the risks;
e. failed to explain the risks and signs of narcotic excitement;
f. failed to explain the risks of injection into the heart without sedation;
5. failed to obtain Bouncer’s owner’s informed consent for the procedure;
6. failed to make any clinical records in respect of the procedure;
7. provided inadequate veterinary care to Bouncer and caused him unnecessary suffering; and
8. failed to communicate with Bouncer’s owner.
Having considered evidence about the case from Bouncer’s owner, his owner’s former partner, two expert witnesses and Mr Hendrie Smith, the Committee found all of the charges against Mr Hendrie Smith proven, with the exception of charge 4(e) on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence against him on this particular charge.
In considering whether the charges that were found proven amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee heard further evidence from the College’s two expert witnesses, and submissions from both the College and Mr Hendrie Smith. Having considered the evidence and submissions, the Committee concluded that in relation to each of the charges found proven, Mr Hendrie Smith’s conduct had fallen far below that which was to be expected from a veterinary surgeon and was therefore serious professional misconduct.
The Committee went on to consider what sanction was appropriate following its earlier findings against Mr Hendrie Smith. The Committee took into account a number of mitigating and aggravating factors. In mitigation the Committee considered that this was a single, isolated incident and that Mr Hendrie Smith had been a practising veterinary surgeon for 65 years and had an otherwise unblemished career with no adverse professional findings against him. It also took into account testimonials from professional colleagues, clients and his local community.
However, the Committee also considered the aggravating factors which included actual injury and unnecessary suffering to an animal, a blatant disregard of the systems that regulate the veterinary profession including the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance relating to euthanasia, informed consent, preventing unnecessary suffering and working within one’s area of competence.
In explaining its decision to direct his removal from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons, the Committee noted Mr Hendrie Smith’s lack of insight into his behaviour, which included denying that he was at fault, challenging several of the Committee’s findings and disputing that an intracardiac injection into the heart of a dog without administering sedation or anaesthesia was wholly unacceptable, despite expert opinion to the contrary.
Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The respondent, in his oral evidence, admitted that he was not really a small animal vet, and had not been dealing regularly with small animals for a significant period of time. His specialisation in recent years was with large farm animals. The Committee considered that the respondent had, and still has, no concept of the difficulties now recognised as inherent in the procedure he performed, or the risks of pain and suffering it posed to the animal."
She added: "The Committee has found that the respondent’s conduct in attempting an intracardiac injection without prior sedation or anaesthesia caused appalling pain and suffering to Bouncer, as evidenced by his screaming, and was wholly unnecessary. The respondent accepted that he had a sedative in his car, but chose not to postpone attempted euthanasia so that he could sedate his patient first.
"The respondent explained in his oral evidence that he had, in the past, euthanased over 200 dogs by intracardiac injection without sedation or anaesthesia. The Committee concludes that this was the respondent’s customary method of euthanasia, and he did not understand why it was wholly unacceptable for a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon to carry out euthanasia in this way. Given his lack of insight, the Committee considers that there is a risk that, if the respondent were to be asked to euthanase a dog in the future, he would be likely to use his customary method, and thereby cause injury and suffering to another animal."
In determining the sanction the Committee decided that, because there had been a serious departure from the professional standards set out in the Code, serious harm was caused and there was a serious risk of harm to animals in the future, that removing Mr Hendrie Smith from the Register was the only means of protecting animals and the wider public interest.
Mr Hendrie Smith has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to make an appeal to the Privy Council.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed an application to be restored to the Register of Veterinary Surgeons from former Wirral-based vet Ian Beveridge.
In May 2013 the Committee had asked the Registrar to remove Mr Beveridge from the Register following a four-day hearing in which he was found guilty of serious professional misconduct after finding that he had treated clients badly, kept inadequate clinical records, was dishonest in his dealings with the RCVS and that animals in his care were placed at risk.
In June 2013 Mr Beveridge, who was not present or represented at the original hearing, then appealed the decision. The appeal was withdrawn in May 2014 which was when Mr Beveridge was formally removed from the Register.
Then, in April 2015, Mr Beveridge applied to be restored to the Register. The Disciplinary Committee met to consider his application in June 2015, however, this hearing was adjourned after new evidence was served to the Committee concerning allegations that Mr Beveridge had ordered prescription-only veterinary medicines when he was not authorised to do so. He was subsequently interviewed by police who took no further action.
In deciding whether Mr Beveridge was fit to be restored to the Register, the Committee heard evidence in regards to the circumstances in which the prescription-only drugs were ordered using his account and delivered to his former practice address which had been taken over by Medivet after he sold the premises to the company.
During the course of the hearing, Mr Beveridge admitted that his account had been used to buy the drugs, but that a part-time member of his staff, who was neither a veterinary surgeon nor a veterinary nurse, had done so without his prior knowledge or approval.
In relation to this evidence Ian Green, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee, said: "The Committee takes the view that the unauthorised use of a veterinary surgeon’s drugs account for which he carries the ultimate responsibility is a very serious matter and, of itself, demonstrates that the applicant has at best a cavalier attitude to his work which of itself means that he remains unfit to be on the Register.
"This attitude is further demonstrated by the fact that, even after the first orders were placed in late April and early May 2014, the applicant did not seek clarification from the College of his status following the withdrawal of his appeal against the original Committee’s findings."
In addition to this, the Committee also considered the seriousness of his original failings, the fact that Mr Beveridge’s acceptance of these failings was ‘qualified’, that he had been off the Register for 20 months and the fact that his efforts in terms of continuing professional development had been inadequate and not focused on those areas in need of improvement, among other factors. In mitigation it did consider that Mr Beveridge had demonstrated genuine remorse about previous actions and noted a petition and a large number of letters in support of him from former clients of his practice.
However, the Committee felt that this did not detract from the seriousness of the original failings and, in conjunction with the subsequent unauthorised ordering of veterinary drugs, that the application for restoration must be dismissed.
The College says it will be promoting its Find a Vet search tool and its new Practice Standards Scheme (PSS) at the event, which runs from Thursday 4 to Sunday 7 August. It will also be giving career advice for prospective veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.
The College’s Find a Vet search tool was relaunched earlier this year, allowing users to search for a veterinary surgeon, veterinary nurse or veterinary practice all in one place. The tool also includes new features such as displaying a practice’s visiting information (including opening hours and car parking); enabling users to ‘get directions’ via Google Maps; advertising a practice’s PSS accreditations and awards; and returning individual profile pages for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.
To promote the free search tool the College will be encouraging visitors to take part in its Find a Vet dice game, as well as hosting a random draw photo competition which will encourage members of the public to find and photograph one of our veterinary surgeons or veterinary nurses who will be lost in the grounds of Blenheim Palace.
Another of the College’s promotional focuses is the new PSS. The new PSS is designed to provide a greater focus on how practices use their resources to create a positive outcome for patients and clients, and allows for practices to distinguish the areas in which they excel through its awards system. The College says it is using BBC Countryfile Live to raise the profile of PSS and make animal owners more aware of the various available accreditation levels.
Ahead of the event, the RCVS is running social media competitions to give away 15 free pairs of tickets: on Facebook (/TheRCVS); Twitter (@RCVS_UK); and its new Instagram account (@thercvs). The competitions ends Friday 29 July, with winners being announced that day at 5pm. Tickets will allow entry on Thursday 4, Friday 5, and Sunday 7 August.
Lindsay Newell, a Derbyshire veterinary nurse, has been struck off by The Veterinary Nurses Disciplinary Committee of the RCVS, after she was found guilty of the unlawful possession of veterinary medicines and failing to give regard to welfare in respect of six animals.
The hearing for Ms Newell, who did not attend and was not represented, concluded on 18th November 2015. It related to two main charges against her. The first was that, on 29 November 2012, she was found in possession of a number of veterinary medicines without lawful permission.
The Committee heard that the RSPCA and police officers had attended Ms Newell’s home on that day, where they found veterinary medicines, including controlled drugs, stored in an insecure cabinet within an insecure shed. It heard that during a police interview, she agreed that she was not allowed to possess some of the drugs and subsequently accepted a police caution, which the Committee took as an admission of the offence and therefore found the charge proved.
The second charge was that, between 1 and 29 November 2012 at the Burton Wildlife and Rescue Centre in Etwall, Derbyshire, she failed to give any or sufficient regards to the welfare of six animals in her care. These charges relate to an RSPCA investigation of the rescue centre on 29 November 2012 which found two animals dead and the rest of the animals emaciated and in poor physical condition.
The animals included a male lamb found dead in its pen, a ‘furry-faced’ lamb which died just over a week after the investigation took place, a female goat which died 12 hours after being taken to a veterinary practice for treatment and a pig which died during the investigation process, as well as an adult ewe and a pony which both survived. The charge against her also cited her failure to supply an adequate diet, obtain any or any adequate veterinary attention and explore and address the cause of the weight loss for these animals.
The Committee found all parts of the second charge proved and was satisfied that Ms Newell failed to give sufficient regard to animal welfare as is required by the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses.
In deciding its sanction, the Committee considered a number of aggravating factors in this case. It found that, in respect of both charges, the misconduct was “sustained over a period of time rather than being a single and isolated incident” and that, in respect of the second charge, that there was “actual harm caused to animals, which resulted in the deaths of four out of the six animals.”
The Committee felt that this constituted reckless disregard for animal welfare rather than deliberate acts but, nevertheless, said that these animals unnecessarily suffered for a period of at least four weeks due to inadequate diet and that, as rescue animals that were already vulnerable, the expectation was that they would be given the appropriate level of care. It also found that Ms Newell had demonstrated limited insight into her behaviour. Furthermore, it considered that a Magistrates’ Court had also disqualified Ms Newell from keeping sheep, goats, pigs, and equines for a period of five years.
In mitigation it considered that Ms Newell did show some insight into her behaviour in relation to the first charge by making admissions during her police interview, as well as the fact that the animal sanctuary, which opened in 2008, had no complaints or cause for concern prior to 2012.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee is of the opinion that removal of Ms Newell’s name from the Register of Veterinary Nurses is the only appropriate sanction based upon the severity of the facts found proved.”
The protesters, which VetNurse.co.uk understands comprise six veterinary surgeons and 30-40 pet owners, started their march in Parliament Square and are now bearing down on the RCVS Headquarters in Horseferry Road.
The campaigners are, we are told, protesting against the RCVS position statement on complementary and homeopathic veterinary medicines.
No word yet on how the College proposes to defend itself from the hoard; certainly no sign of any cauldrons of boiling oil atop the battlements, nor any riot police yet in evidence.
More news as it happens. VetNurse.co.uk has a photographer on the ground ...
UPDATES
1:00pm: The protesters have arrived at Belgravia House. A couple of protesters are armed with umbrellas, presumably to guard against the ever-present risk of overdose. It's getting messy: we're hearing that they've blocked the pavement. Wait up. Someone has emerged from the College to speak with them. Well hello, Mr President.
1:01pm: We were hoping that some of the protesters might, I dunno, handcuff themselves to Belgravia House or something. But after a tense standoff lasting over 36 seconds, it looks like the protest is petering out already. Apparently they've started dispersing to the park opposite.
1:02pm: Yup, they've all gone off to the park now. This may go down as one of the shortest protests in history.
1:16pm: Word has it they've headed off to the White Horse and Bower.More photos of this momentous occasion to follow ...
1. The seasoned campaigner is always careful to choose any banner that appears over their head with great care.
2. It was a beautiful march. A big march. The bigliest. Haven't seen that many people on the street since Donald Trump's inauguration.
3. The RCVS headquarters under siege.
4. Millie the dog (perhaps better called 'Millie the anecdote') illustrates the flawed thinking behind homeopathy.
5. Nobody told this campaigner than homeopathy wasn't banned in the first place. You can get it from any tap.
6. RCVS President, Professor Stephen May, presumably wishing he'd taken the day off work.
7. It took some hours moments before the crowd dispersed fully and life in London was able to return to normal.
3.43pm: The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has issued a statement following the march, which says:
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons today met a delegation of around 40 animal owners and veterinary surgeons who wished to voice their concern about a recent position statement by RCVS Council on the use of complementary and alternative medicines, including homeopathy.
President Stephen May and CEO Lizzie Lockett received a copy of an online petition that was set up following the statement, which has since received around 15,000 signatures, including around 11,000 from supporters in the UK.
Stephen and Lizzie also took time to hear accounts and stories from the supporters, and to listen to the points they wished to raise.
In view of the cold, wet weather, the College had laid on some hot drinks for all the visitors, and invited the delegation inside, but these were declined.
Stephen said: "We were pleased to be able to meet our visitors today and to receive their petition, although it was a little tricky trying to answer questions on a busy London pavement!
"We continue to recognise that homeopathy and other complementary therapies are popular amongst some animal owners and certain members of the veterinary profession, as indicated by today’s delegation, but it is worth reiterating that the RCVS Council statement does not ban their use.
"What it does state, is that in order to protect animal welfare, we regard such treatments as being complementary, rather than alternative, to treatments for which there is a recognised evidence base or which are based on sound scientific principles.
"This is similar to the position that we have held on complementary therapies for many years, but we will always be happy to receive and consider scientific evidence that demonstrates their efficacy."
I wouldn't hold your breath.
All photographs ©2018 Under licence to London News Pictures Ltd. +44 208 088 1155
The RCVS has issued a reminder that you have just over a week to put forward nominees for the annual VN Golden Jubilee Award.
The Award is given in recognition of an outstanding contribution to the profession, animal welfare and/or patient care and nominees can be veterinary nurses, veterinary surgeons or lay people. It was launched in 2011 to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the first RCVS veterinary nursing training course.
Nomination forms need to be submitted by 5pm on Friday 24 April. The principal nominator must be a registered veterinary nurse or veterinary surgeon although the two supporting proposers can be lay people.
The winner will be chosen by a panel of VN Council members and will receive the accolade at RCVS Day – the College’s Annual General Meeting and Awards Day – on Friday 10 July.
The nomination form is available to download from www.rcvs.org.uk/goldenjubilee. For further information contact Annette Amato, Deputy Head of Veterinary Nursing, on a.amato@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0713.
Ceredigion veterinary surgeon Robert Alun Merfyn Evans has been suspended from the Register for six months by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after he admitted to misconduct relating to tuberculin testing for cattle he owned and failing to register the births and deaths of cattle.
Mr Evans appeared before the Committee on the 11th February, when he admitted the two heads of charge of misconduct against him.
The first head of charge related to the fact that, between 24 June and 29 June 2013, he deliberately failed to bring to attention of Wyn Lewis MRCVS, an Official Veterinarian (OV) and fellow director of Mr Evans’ practice in Cardigan, the cattle on his farm requiring intradermal comparative tuberculin tests; that he tested certain of the cattle himself despite not being the OV for those tests and having a conflict of interest; and that he provided inaccurate and incomplete information to his practice for the completion of a report on the testing to be sent to the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA). This misconduct was then repeated the following year between 19 June and 1 August 2014.
The second head of charge against Mr Evans related to breaches of the Cattle Identification (Wales) Regulations 2007 between 4 July 2005 and 20 June 2014, namely the fact that he failed to register the birth of five calves and the death of nine cows. These were accepted as being specimen charges reflecting a much larger total number of breaches over the whole nine year period.
Mr Evans’ misconduct first came to light when a late return was sent to the AHVLA in August 2014 regarding the TB testing of 51 live animals on his farm in June 2014. When the report was scrutinised the AHVLA noticed that 26 animals shown on the return as dead were still registered, while 20 animals that were tested were not registered. When the AHVLA investigated, Mr Evans immediately admitted that he had misled Mr Lewis on two occasions and carried out his own testing despite not being the OV.
The Committee heard that he did this because he did not want it to be found out that he had unregistered cattle on his farm. Regarding the unregistered cattle, the Committee heard that this stemmed from a mistake made by Mr Evans in 2005 or 2006 whereby he mislaid a batch of around nine bovine passport application forms sent to him to register the birth of calves on his farm, a legal requirement for the purposes of animal health, disease control and safeguarding the food chain.
As a result of poor IT skills and being profoundly deaf, Mr Evans felt unable to seek support online or by telephone, was too embarrassed to tell others and, furthermore, felt that it was impossible to correct his mistake without being in breach of the law. So, for a period of nine or 10 years, he failed to register the birth of calves on his farm. His failure to register the deaths of cattle, was also caused by administrative failings. His breaches of the cattle registration regulations were subject to criminal proceedings and on 14 October 2015 he plead guilty at Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire Magistrates Court to 14 offences for which he was given a conditional discharge for 18 months and ordered to pay costs of £1,000.
The Committee considered that a suspension from the Register would be in line with the seriousness of the charges against Mr Evans. Professor Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee agrees that the lengthy period over which these offences took place, his betrayal of his colleague, and the undermining of the reputation of the profession and of the system of disease control, taken together with his dishonesty, make it impossible to impose a lesser sanction than suspension.
"The Committee finds that the respondent, who is a man of good character, has fully accepted his guilt, and has real insight into the seriousness of his conduct. He cooperated fully with the investigations and with the County Council who prosecuted him in the Magistrates [Court], and with the College. He made an open and frank admission about his misconduct from the outset.
"The course of conduct on which he embarked and which has led to these charges was the result of a simple mistake at a time of considerable stress to him. He was not guilty of deliberate misconduct at the outset but… what started as an innocent mistake took on a life of its own and led him to deliberate and dishonest misconduct because he did not know how to get himself out of the predicament he was in."
Professor Barr also said that there was no financial gain in Mr Evans’ actions and that animal welfare had not been compromised as the cattle were well cared for and in good health and that Mr Evans’ actions in carrying out the tuberculin tests on the unregistered cattle himself demonstrated that he was concerned about identifying any disease in his herd.
He added: “In all the circumstances the Committee has decided a proportionate sanction is that the respondent’s registration should be suspended for a period of six months.”
The Committee’s full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
Voter turnout was more or less the same this year as last: 10.9% (or 1,435) of those eligible to vote. The average over the past 10 years is an 8.8% turnout.
The two places available on VN Council will be taken by new members Matthew Rendle and Racheal Marshall who gained 547 votes and 537 votes respectively.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Acting Registrar, said: "I’d like to congratulate all those who were successfully elected, and re-elected, to Council, and thank all those who took part in this year’s elections – whether by standing as a candidate, casting a vote or submitting questions for the candidates to answer."
Liz Cox, Chair of VN Council, added: "Many congratulations to the two brand new members of VN Council – I look forward to working with them over the coming years and seeing what they can bring to help drive the profession forward."
All the successful candidates will take up their positions at RCVS Day – the College’s Annual General Meeting and Awards Day – on Friday 15 July 2016 at the Royal Institute of British Architects.
Each candidate in the elections was invited to produce a short video in which they answered questions put to them by fellow members of the professions and which appeared on the RCVS YouTube channel. The videos provided by the RCVS Council candidates received 1,169 views while those provided by the VN Council candidates received 779 views.
The elections were run on behalf of the College by Electoral Reform Services.
Plans for the introduction of a disciplinary mechanism for Registered Veterinary Nurses (RVNs) have been agreed by the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council.
RVNs agree to account for their professional conduct and keep their skills and knowledge up to date: over 70% of eligible veterinary nurses have now joined the non-statutory Register.
The Veterinary Nurses Council agreed to a period of nearly three years between the opening of the Register and the College putting in place a disciplinary mechanism. This was to give RVNs time to get used to their new rights and responsibilities. Plans are now in place to introduce a disciplinary system from September 2010.
Charges could be brought against a veterinary nurse if found guilty of fraudulent registration, criminal convictions which render him or her unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse, or allegations of disgraceful professional conduct.
The sanctions would be the same as for veterinary surgeons, ie to remove a nurse's name from the Register (with the nurse eligible to apply for restoration after 10 months), or to suspend the nurse, with his or her name returning to the Register immediately after the period of suspension. A veterinary nurse would not be able to carry out Schedule 3 tasks while removed from the Register.
Complaints would initially be dealt with by the Veterinary Nurses Preliminary Investigation Committee (VN PIC), which will assess whether the complaints should be taken to the hearing stage. Three RVNs will sit on this committee. They will be joined by three members of the veterinary PIC, including either the RCVS President, or one of the Vice-Presidents, and one Lay Observer.
Meanwhile three RVNs will join existing members of the RCVS Disciplinary Committee (DC) to form a VN DC, to adjudicate on charges against a veterinary nurse. These individuals will not currently sit on VN Council. If the case were against a VN, the sitting panel would include at least one veterinary nurse, one veterinary surgeon and a lay person acting as chairman. A legal assessor would also sit with the Committee to offer advice.
If a case were to concern both a veterinary surgeon and a veterinary nurse, the preliminary investigation would be carried out in tandem but with separate disciplinary hearings.
Applications are invited for RVNs to sit on the new VN Preliminary Investigation or Disciplinary Committees. Anyone who would like further information should contact Lesley Evans, Manager, Executive Office (l.evans@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7222 2001) by 31 May 2009.
The RCVS and the BVA have published the Vet Futures report: their vision for how the veterinary profession should look in 2030, coupled with 34 recommendations for change.
The report, which represents the culmination of a year of engagement, consultation and research with the veterinary profession, veterinary nurses, members of the wider veterinary team, key stakeholders, animal owners and the general public, says that in 2030 vets should be a leading force for animal health and welfare and valued for their wider roles in society. They should be confident, resilient, healthy and well supported, and benefit from exceptional leadership. And there should be a broad range of diverse and rewarding veterinary careers, as well as thriving, innovative and user-focused businesses.
While the focus of Vet Futures has been on veterinary surgeons, Vet Futures engaged with the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council and British Veterinary Nursing Association, as well as individual veterinary nurses, and the College says that many of the ambitions should resonate with members of both professions. It goes on to recommend that the veterinary nursing profession should build on the work of Vet Futures to develop its own clear vision and ambitions.
The recommendations within the report include:
Other recommendations include developing an animal welfare strategy for the profession, increasing collaboration with medical professionals and environmental organisations, adopting a more strategic long-term outlook for research funding, and exploring how to encourage a more diverse profession.
RCVS President Bradley Viner said: "The Vet Futures report is the culmination of a year of research and engagement with thousands of members of the veterinary and veterinary nursing professions, which has given us a very firm foundation on which to build our ambitions and recommendations. We are extremely grateful to every individual who has contributed in some way to the project, and helped us to seize the initiative.
"Over the years the veterinary profession has proved itself to be adaptable and able to face challenges head on, and we have no doubt that by working together we will realise our joint vision of a profession in charge of its future. Ultimately, we all want a profession that is confident in itself and one in which members are proud to call themselves veterinary surgeons."
Sean Wensley, BVA President, added: "Vet Futures has proved to be an exciting, engaging and truly ambitious project for the veterinary profession and it has created a fantastic level of debate and engagement.
"The report we are launching today is not the end of the story; it is the beginning of the next chapter. It is crucial that we maintain the momentum of the project so we will be inviting members of the veterinary professions to step forward and join a new Vet Futures Action Group to help us turn the recommendations into actions and drive forward activity."
The full report can be downloaded here.
The event, to be held at Dovecote Veterinary Hospital in Castle Donington in Leicestershire, is open to all veterinary nurses and employers who are considering, or already have, a flexible approach to working arrangements. It includes a supper starting at 18:15, with the event itself kicking off at 19:00 with a series of talks:
Following the talks there will be a panel discussion involving the speakers and members of the VN Futures Action Group and the opportunity to ask questions.
Julie Dugmore, RCVS Director of Veterinary Nursing, said: "A flexible approach to work schedules provides massive benefits to the practice as well as to the veterinary nurse. Veterinary nursing retention is an ongoing struggle in the profession, and being open to more non-traditional working patterns that can better work around family and other non-work commitments will hopefully mean fewer people leaving the profession and can help employers create a confident, cohesive veterinary nursing team."
To book your space, visit the VN Futures event page: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/flexible-working-how-it-can-benefit-you-and-your-team-tickets-44483739061
For more information, contact Claire O’Leary, RCVS Education Officer, at: info@vnfutures.org.uk or call 020 7202 0712.
The VN Futures Report and Action Plan, which contains a full list of the recommendations and actions that grew out of the VN Futures project, can be downloaded from www.vetfutures.org.uk/vnfutures
The hearing proceeded in Ms Kay’s absence as she failed to attend. The Committee heard a number of charges relating to her practising while under the influence of alcohol, breaching undertakings to the College to abstain completely from alcohol, alleged serious clinical failings in relation to the treatment of two dogs, Izzy and Alfie, and making disparaging remarks to a client about other veterinary surgeons (the complete list of charges can be found on the College’s website: www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/).
In relation to the first charge, (that in September 2016, while a locum veterinary surgeon at Haven Veterinary Surgeons Group, Great Yarmouth, she was under the influence of alcohol), the Committee heard from a veterinary nurse at the practice who told how on different occasions Miss Kay had appeared to need more assistance than expected, was overly friendly in speaking to clients, was unable to prepare a syringe correctly, and finally, on 14 September 2016, was found asleep in the car with an open can of alcohol by her feet. The Committee also heard from a number of other witnesses from the Haven Veterinary Surgeons Group who also provided evidence of Ms Kay’s behaviour on the day in question. Following deliberations, the Committee found the first charge to be proved.
The second charge related to the breaching of undertakings which Ms Kay had given to the College to the effect that she would abstain completely from alcohol. When samples were taken on 3 August 2017, however, it was found that she had been consuming alcohol in the recent past. The Committee was therefore satisfied that the second charge was proved.
The Committee then turned to the third charge, that in March 2017 Ms Kay had displayed a number of clinical failings when performing surgery on a cocker spaniel, Izzy, belonging to Mrs Debbie Coe. The Committee found the majority of the charges proved, amongst others that she failed to obtain informed consent for surgery, performed surgery in her own home when it was not registered as a veterinary practice and it was not possible to ensure sterility, and that she failed to provide suitable post-operative analgesia to Izzy.
The College then turned to the fourth charge, which concerned her treatment of Mrs Coe’s other dog, Alfie, a Miniature Schnauzer. The charge was that in March 2017, Ms Kay euthanased Alfie in an inappropriate manner, and used a controlled drug without having a registered veterinary premise from which to dispense it. After hearing from an expert witness the Committee found the charges proved.
Finally, the Committee heard evidence relating to the fifth charge, namely that in or around July 2016, Ms Kay made disparaging remarks to Mrs Coe about other veterinary surgeons who had treated Alfie, and that between 17 March and 31 March 2017 she had sent inappropriate texts and voicemail messages to Mrs Coe about the treatment of her dogs and payments owed in relation to this. The Committee thought there was not enough evidence in relation to the voicemails, but found the remainder of the charge proved.
Taking all into account, the Committee found that Ms Kay’s conduct had fallen far short of the standard expected of a member of the veterinary profession and concluded that her conduct clearly amounts to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee considered that the only appropriate sanction is that of removal from the Register. Such a sanction is required to protect animals and to send a clear message to the Respondent, and to all veterinary surgeons, of the unacceptability of the conduct identified in this case. Such conduct undermines public confidence in the profession and fails to uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.
"Accordingly, the Committee has decided that removal from the Register is the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case."
Ms Kay has 28 days from being informed about the Disciplinary Committee’s decision to make an appeal to the Privy Council.
Mr Smith was convicted of conspiracy to commit a fraud in which potentially dangerous horses were drugged and then sold to unsuspecting owners, at Maidstone Crown Court in June 2016. He was given 30 months' imprisonment, which formed one of the charges heard by the Disciplinary Committee.
There were also a number of charges related to his treatment of five different animals while in practice at the Lakeview Veterinary Centre in Folkestone, Kent. The charges were:
In relation to a Clydesdale mare named Grace on 14 August 2014 he failed to perform an adequate examination and/or undertake sufficient investigation and/or take a history of her; that after his initial visit to Grace on that day he failed to respond adequately to the owner’s telephone reports that Grace had deteriorated and/or failed to improve; and, that he failed to make adequate clinical records for Grace.
Between 29 September 2014 and 31 January 2015, in relation to a Labradoodle named Holly, he failed to keep adequate clinical records.
In relation to a cat named Maisey the allegations were that he failed to examine and investigate the cat adequately, he made a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and gave insulin to administer to the cat without first undertaking the minimum investigation required, failed to keep adequate clinical records and sent an incorrect, misleading and dishonest statement to the RCVS regarding his treatment of Maisey. All charges date between 30 October and 19 December 2014.
In relation to a cat called Comet the allegation was that between 1 April and 17 April 2015 he failed to keep adequate clinical records and failed to respond adequately and appropriately to concerns raised by the owner.
Regarding a Yorkshire Terrier with diabetes named Poppy the allegation was that in two emergency out-of-hours calls made by Poppy’s owner to Mr Smith in April 2015 regarding the dog’s condition, he failed to recommend veterinary treatment or keep adequate clinical records. Furthermore, when the owner attended the practice following the two calls and the death of Poppy, he attributed the care to another member of the practice and failed to communicate effectively with the owner.
Having heard from a number of witnesses, including Mr Smith, and having received representations from Mr Smith in relation to the above charges, the Committee found almost all of the charges proven, with the exception of those relating to Mr Smith’s alleged conversation with Poppy’s owner at the practice following her death.
The Committee then went on to consider whether the various proven charges amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect and whether the conviction rendered Mr Smith unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
In relation to the clinical charges the Committee found that, both individually and cumulatively, they amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The Committee also determined that the conviction rendered Mr Smith unfit to practise veterinary surgery and noted that it involved prolonged dishonesty, breach of trust, disregard for animal health and welfare and a "total abrogation of Mr Smith’s professional responsibilities."
Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee was particularly concerned because the dishonesty went to the heart of Mr Smith’s responsibilities as a veterinary surgeon. His registration as a veterinary surgeon enabled him to take part in the conspiracy, and that role involved him conducting certified examinations on animals and supplying drugs for administration to animals. Reliable and honest certification is a vital element of the veterinary surgeon’s public role."
In considering the sanction against Mr Smith the Committee looked at the clinical charges and the conviction separately.
In relation to the clinical charges the Committee found that his treatment of the animals in these cases was fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon. The Committee therefore directed that Mr Smith’s name should be removed from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons.
The Committee said that the case demonstrated that Mr Smith’s lack of treatment or his inappropriate treatment of these animals caused harm and that in some regards, for example the writing of accurate and contemporaneous clinical notes, Mr Smith demonstrated a total disrespect for the Code of Professional Conduct.
The Committee went on to say: "Further, he deliberately lied to his regulator. He demonstrated deep-seated attitudinal issues including a misplaced belief in his own abilities and had no insight or commitment to do anything different in the future. In those circumstances the likelihood of repetition was significant in the Committee’s view."
In considering the sanction for his conviction of conspiracy to commit fraud the Committee took into account a number of aggravating factors including the premeditated nature of the conduct, the fact it was repeated over four years and the fact that harm was caused to both animals and people as a result of his actions.
Cerys Jones said: "As the decision notes, some of the riders were novices or children and as a result of their experience they lost confidence in riding a horse. As the independent veterinary surgeon Mr Smith was in a position of responsibility because he was certifying the horses as to their suitability. A particularly aggravating feature in this case is that Mr Smith had previously been removed from the Register for falsely certifying horses for export."
In relation to the conviction the Committee also directed that the Registrar remove Mr Smith from the Register.
Mr Smith has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to make an appeal against it.
The full findings can be found here.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) has clarified the legal position regarding the disbudding of goats, following recent media reports concerning undercover filming on UK goat farms.
The carrying out of any activity which amounts to veterinary surgery is restricted to veterinary surgeons unless there is a suitable exemption that allows other people to do it. The removal of the horn-bud of goats (disbudding) is considered veterinary surgery under the provisions of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (the Act).
Schedule 3 of the Act provides certain exemptions to the restriction on carrying out veterinary surgery, such as those allowing veterinary nurses and student veterinary nurses to undertake any medical treatment or any minor surgery (not involving entry into a body cavity) in certain circumstances. However, Schedule 3 specifically provides that these exemptions do not allow non-veterinary surgeons to undertake the disbudding of goats, except the trimming of the insensitive tip of an in-growing horn which, if left untreated, could cause pain or distress.
There are no other Exemption Orders covering the disbudding of goats and therefore this procedure may only be undertaken by veterinary surgeons.
The Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007, the Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (Wales) Regulations 2007 and the Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Regulations 2007 all include disbudding of goats as a procedure which can be carried out for non-therapeutic reasons. However, this secondary legislation is subject to the restrictions in the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 and therefore disbudding of goats is restricted to veterinary surgeons.The Welfare of Animals (Permitted Procedures By Lay Persons) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 currently include disbudding of goats as a procedure which may be carried out by non-veterinary surgeons. However, the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 applies to Northern Ireland and the Regulations are scheduled to be amended later in 2012. This will make it clear that only veterinary surgeons may disbud goats in the UK.
The secondary legislation in the UK does not explicitly require anaesthetic to be administered when disbudding goats. However, disbudding should be carried out by veterinary surgeons in accordance with good practice and in such a way as to minimise pain and suffering caused to the animal, which should include use of an anaesthetic.
In summary, only a veterinary surgeon may undertake the disbudding of goats and due to the nature of the procedure, veterinary surgeons disbudding goats should administer anaesthetic.
Vet Futures, the joint initiative by the RCVS and BVA to stimulate debate about the future of the profession, is running an essay competition with a prize of an all-expenses-paid trip to the London Vet Show (London Olympia, 19th-20th November).
To win, you need to submit an essay of 1000 words or less which outlines an idea that will transform the veterinary/veterinary nursing profession by 2030. The College suggests that entrants might might look at a new business model, a new approach to education, a technological innovation or perhaps a way that the working lives of those in the practice team could be improved.
Anyone with an interest in the veterinary profession can enter the competition, including veterinary surgeons, nurses, practice managers and students.
The entries will be judged by the Vet Futures Project Board, which includes the Presidents and Chief Executives of both the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association.
Entries will be anonymised then scored on a range of criteria, including originality, potential impact for the future and realistic prospects of change. The winning entry will be placed in a time capsule, to be opened by the veterinary profession in 2030.
The closing date for entries is midnight on Monday 31 August 2015, and the winner will be notified on Monday 7 September 2015.
The full rules and details of how entries can be submitted can be found on www.vetfutures.org.uk/essaycomp.
The charges were:
On 28 September 2015 she was convicted of stealing three packets of Tramadol to the value of £45 from Milton Keynes Veterinary Group.
On 20 April 2017 she was convicted on two counts of issuing a false prescription with the intention of being dispensed Tramadol.
On 15 June 2017 she was convicted of numerous counts of making false prescriptions, as well as stealing £108.47 worth of scratch cards and cigarettes from Premier Queensway Stores.
Between 5 January 2015 and 25 August 2015 she held herself out as a registered veterinary nurse when she was in fact not on the Register, and worked at two separate veterinary practices during that time; and that she was therefore either (i) being dishonest, or (ii) ought to have known that she was not registered.
That on or around 13 April 2016, she made a written representation on an application form for restoration to the Register that she had no criminal convictions, when on 28 September 2015 she had been convicted of burglary and that conviction was not spent; and that she was (i) either dishonest, or (ii) ought to have known that the representation was false.
Ms Wilde admitted charges 1-3, and the Committee were also provided with copies of the convictions. The Committee therefore found charges 1-3 proven.
In considering the fourth charge, they took into account Ms Wilde’s submission that she believed the submission of a cheque would be enough to restore her to the Register. The Committee noted that she had restored herself to the Register in the past, however, and so would have been aware that a cheque alone was not sufficient, and she had also been sent a restoration form following a telephone call with the College on 2 January 2015. The Committee therefore found that Ms Wilde was being dishonest, and determined that charge 4(i) was proven.
In considering the fifth charge, the Committee considered Ms Wilde’s submission that a Probation Officer had told her that her conviction was spent and that she need not declare it. The Committee believed this to be highly unlikely, however, especially as Ms Wilde had provided no evidence from the probation service to support this assertion. The Committee therefore found her to be dishonest, and charge 5(i) to be proven.
The question of whether the facts amounted to serious professional misconduct was, however, solely a matter for the Committee’s judgement. It determined that Ms Wilde’s conduct in relation to charges 1-3 had fallen far short of the standard expected of an RVN and her conduct clearly renders her unfit to practise as an RVN.
Similarly, the Committee found that Ms Wilde’s conduct had fallen far short of the standard expected of an RVN in respect of charges 4-5, and found her conduct clearly amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The Committee then turned to the question of sanction, firstly in respect of charges 1-3. It considered some testimonials that spoke on Ms Wilde’s behalf, but noted that they were all unsigned and none made any reference to the charges against her. The Committee also bore in mind that Ms Wilde had no previous disciplinary history and was apologetic and remorseful, and that no harm had come to animals or humans by her actions.
It also considered, however, that her behaviour had been repeated and sustained, that she had used her knowledge as an RVN to forge prescriptions, and that she had breached the trust of her employers by stealing from them. The Committee therefore decided that removal from the Register was the only appropriate sanction.
When considering sanction in respect of charges 4-5, the Committee took into account that Ms Wilde had difficult personal circumstances and was sincerely apologetic. Using her title of RVN to gain employment when she was not on the Register, however, and breaching the trust of the College by making a false declaration, were considered serious aggravating features. It therefore considered that removal from the Register was again the only appropriate sanction.
Judith Way, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: “Ms Wilde’s criminal behaviour failed to maintain public confidence in the veterinary nursing profession and it failed to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.
“She also knew that she was not registered as an RVN, yet she held herself out as being so and obtained employment in that capacity. In holding herself out in this manner she potentially put her colleagues at risk. She could have compromised the practices that employed her in the capacity of an RVN as their insurance had the potential to be invalidated.
“Ms Wilde was also dishonest with the RCVS when she completed the application for restoration of registered veterinary nurses’ form by stating that she had no convictions. Following this application, Ms Wilde went on to commit the seven further offences (from December 2016 to March 2017) for which she was later convicted in the Northampton and Leicester Magistrates’ Courts. The committee considered that such conduct falls far short of the standards expected of an RVN.”
Ms Wilde may appeal the Committee’s decision within 28 days of being informed of it. If no appeal is received, the Committee’s judgment takes effect.
Dermot Costello, a Shropshire practitioner, has been suspended by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for 10 weeks after he admitted being dishonest with a client and falsifying records about the treatment of her dog.
Mr Costello faced four charges against him:
At the outset of the hearing, Mr Costelloe, a partner at a veterinary practice in Market Drayton, Shropshire, admitted all heads of charge against him.
Scruffy had been brought to Mr Costelloe for a consultation on 27 October 2014. He carried out a physical examination and arranged for radiographs and routine blood tests while also prescribing anti-inflammatory tablets for spondylosis. Scruffy was brought back to the practice on 30 October 2014 following the deterioration of her condition. Further assessment took place and an abdominal scan was arranged for the next day. She stayed at the practice overnight, but died at some point during the night of 30 to 31 October 2014.
A telephone call between Mrs Green and Mr Costelloe took place shortly after 8am on 31 October during which he told her that "they had struggled with Scruffy all night" and that, as they were speaking, Scruffy was on oxygen and struggling to breathe.
After Mrs Green said she wanted to come to the practice to be with her dog, Mr Costelloe told her to wait and that he would call her back in two minutes. He did so and told her Scruffy had died five minutes ago, when in fact she had died at some point between 11pm on 30 October and 8am on 31 October.
Mr Costelloe continued the deception at meetings with Mrs Green on 31 October and 19 November 2014 and she was given the falsified clinical records on 4 December 2014. Another meeting took place on 14 January 2015 where Mr Costelloe finally admitted his deception to her. This resulted in Mrs Green submitting a formal complaint to the RCVS on 23 February 2015. He admitted his deception to the College in writing on 4 August 2015.
The Committee decided that all four heads of charge amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect as his actions contravened several sections of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons in relation to being open and honest with clients; keeping clear, accurate and detailed clinical records; and not engaging in any actions or behaviour that would likely bring the profession into disrepute or undermine public confidence in the profession.
The Committee noted that, in his statement, Mr Costelloe gave a number of reasons for his conduct, including concern over Mrs Green’s reaction to the death of her dog and concern for the young vet who was on duty when Scruffy died. However, the Committee considered that the need to be open and honest with his clients should have been put above the needs of his practice.
In considering its sanction against Mr Costelloe, the Committee heard mitigating evidence from four character witnesses called on his behalf, as well as a number of written testimonials, and also had regard to his evident remorse, shame and insight into his behaviour.
However, it also considered a number of aggravating factors, including the fact that the misconduct had premeditated elements, was sustained over a period of weeks, and constituted a clear breach of client trust.
The Committee decided that the most appropriate sanction was to suspend Mr Costelloe from the Register for a period of 10 weeks. Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "It [the Committee] concluded that this was the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case. The Committee took the view that the likelihood of repetition of dishonest conduct was very low. It had found no ‘attitude of dishonesty’ in the respondent. There were no risks to the welfare or health of animals. The respondent was a good veterinary surgeon and he had shown considerable insight regarding his dishonesty, for example, by actively seeking out Ms Green to tell her the truth.
"The Committee does not condone what the respondent has done. It considers that the public interest requires that there has to be confidence that veterinary surgeons do not fabricate accounts or documents, no matter what their intentions."
She added: "The Committee has therefore determined that suspension for a period of 10 weeks is proportionate in all the circumstances to mark the nature and gravity of the case and is sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession and to uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour, and directs the Registrar accordingly."