The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has set up a Working Party to consider whether the time has come for new legislation to regulate the profession.

The Legislation Working Party was set up on the recommendation of the College’s Brexit Taskforce, which considered that in light of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union and the deficiencies in the existing legislation, now would be a good time to review the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966.

The Working Party, which is expected to have its first meeting in May, will be chaired by RCVS Junior Vice-President Professor Stephen May and will include the British Veterinary Association’s President, Gudrun Ravetz, RCVS CEO Nick Stace, RCVS Registrar Eleanor Ferguson, Chair of VN Council Liz Cox, RCVS Treasurer and Junior Vice-President elect Amanda Boag, and RCVS Council members Kate Richards and lay member Richard Davis.

The Working Party’s remit will be to ensure that the College’s vision for the future of veterinary legislation is given proper consideration so that it can respond to future opportunities to support a new Act; to propose a list of principles on which new legislation should be based; and to make recommendations as to whether the new legislation should be a ‘Veterinary Services Act’ providing an umbrella for allied professionals and exploring compulsory practice inspection.

Professor Stephen May said: "The UK leaving the EU will necessitate some changes to the Veterinary Surgeons Act as it currently exists so this feels like an opportune moment to carry out a wholesale review of the legislative basis for regulation of the veterinary profession in the UK.

"Clearly using 50-year-old legislation has its limitations, and while we have been able to make use of legislative reform orders and changes to the Royal Charter to make significant changes to the College – for example, in terms of our disciplinary and governance arrangements – the fact is that this somewhat antiquated legislation is the basis for all we do.

"For example under the current Act veterinary nurses still lack statutory regulation and protection of title, there is no underpinning for our continuing professional development (CPD) requirements and specialist/ advanced practitioner status and the College lacks the power of entry or similar power needed for compulsory practice inspection.

"We hope that, by giving the legislation a fresh look, we can consider how it could better cover the veterinary industry as a whole and not just the rather narrow definition given in the original Act."

The Legislation Working Party is to meet at least four times and will report to RCVS Council in due course.

The RCVS Registered Veterinary Nurse Disciplinary Committee has suspended a Northants-based registered veterinary nurse who admitted to acting dishonestly with her employer, a client and a pet database company by taking home a patient that was supposed to have been euthanised.

During the two-day hearing, the Committee heard how Sally-Ann Roberts, formerly of the Best Friends Veterinary Group in Thrapston, had deliberately gone against the wishes of the owners of a 14-year-old Maine Coon cat called Jason that he be euthanised, rather than treated further, and instead had taken the cat home with her for "intensive nursing". Jason had subsequently escaped from Ms Robert's residence, leading her to fabricate a story, first to the pet database company, and then to Jason's owners and her employer, that he had escaped from the practice, before being returned by a member of the public two days later and then euthanised as originally requested.

Ms Roberts acted with her veterinary surgeon colleague Przemyslaw Bogdanowicz, who chose not to euthanise Jason and who, for his part, received a three-month suspension from the RCVS Disciplinary Committee in December 2012. She repeated the false account on a number of occasions, both orally and in written statements, and also forged the signature of Jason's owner on official documentation in order to substantiate her story.

Only when Ms Roberts was interviewed for a second time by her then employer's area manager, did she finally admit to what had actually happened. Shortly afterwards, Ms Roberts was suspended from the practice and, following an internal disciplinary hearing a few days later, was dismissed by them for gross misconduct, along with Mr Bogdanowicz. There was no evidence available as to what ultimately happened to Jason.

Explaining her actions to the Committee, Ms Roberts said she was upset that Jason's owners wanted him to be euthanised and felt that he could recover if given some love and attention. She had asked Mr Bogdanowicz to discuss this possibility with Jason's owners, but he had refused, agreeing instead that she could continue Jason's treatment at her home. After Jason escaped, Ms Roberts said she was "devastated" and had "panicked", inventing the story of Jason's escape to cover her actions, which she now acknowledged were "wrong" and "stupid", and which she "bitterly regretted". Ms Roberts expressed sorrow and remorse for her behaviour, which she said would never occur again, and stated that being a veterinary nurse was everything to her.

In view of the admitted facts, the Committee judged that Ms Robert's dishonesty and breach of client trust, as well the distinct risk of injury to which she exposed Jason, amounted to serious professional misconduct. In deciding on an appropriate sanction, the Committee balanced a number of aggravating factors (in particular, the forged signature) against Ms Roberts' "strong mitigation", which included her admitting the entirety of the charges against her, her medical and personal problems at the time, the insight she had shown into the effects of her actions on Jason's owners and her previous unblemished career.

Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speak on behalf of the Committee, said: "The Committee has concluded that the Respondent has shown insight into the seriousness of her misconduct and that there is no significant risk of repeat behaviour. In light of the Respondent's admission, her insight, her remorse and the high regard in which she is held by her professional colleagues, it is the Committee's view that the sanction of two months' suspension is appropriate and proportionate."

The Committee's full decisions on facts and sanction are available at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.

The RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council has decided that the College should cease being an awarding body next year, which means it will no longer offer the vocational Level 3 Diploma in Veterinary Nursing.

The College says it will ensure that the Diploma continues to be available by transferring the intellectual property associated with the qualification, such as the question banks and systems, to another larger awarding body, in a move which is likely to take effect for the beginning of the 2012 academic year.

According to the College, this decision reflects recent changes in the regulatory Conditions of Approval for awarding bodies, which it would have been hard for the College to meet while continuing to offer the Diploma cost-effectively. The changes mainly relate to potential conflicts of interest between the College's primary role, as professional regulator that safeguards standards within the veterinary professions, and its role as an awarding body. The standards-setting role includes the regulation of education and training leading to the veterinary and VN registers, and it was felt that the College could no longer exercise this role effectively if it was also an awarding organisation, as it might be suspected of treating its internal qualifications more favourably, or of obstructing competitors.

Although the College says this has not been a problem in the past, the rules are now more stringent, and the costs of setting up a fully independent awarding body would be prohibitive.

The market for the Diploma is also likely to fragment in the future, with three other awarding bodies expressing an interest in offering a Level 3 Diploma. Any reduction in the number of students taking the RCVS Level 3 Diploma would further push up the costs, potentially making the RCVS Awarding Body unviable. A larger awarding body can take advantage of economies of scale across a range of awards in a way that the RCVS cannot.

Colonel Neil Smith, Chairman of the RCVS Awarding Body Board said: "The RCVS has been offering vocational qualifications since 1998 and the decision to cease being an awarding body has not been taken lightly.

"We have taken this decision in order to focus on our core responsibilities of professional regulation and standard setting. However, we remain committed to maintaining the Diploma, which has been carefully developed by the RCVS and the profession. This move ensures that it will stay in safe hands."

The name of the awarding body to which the qualification will be transferred has not yet been announced because the process is not complete. However, the College says it felt it was important to give those involved with the delivery of training as much notice as possible of the change. More information, and the change-over plan, will be released in due course.

Libby Earle, RCVS Head of Veterinary Nursing said: "Our priority will be effecting a smooth transfer for students, Colleges and training practices, and we are confident that the impact of the change will be minimal. Furthermore, it will be a condition of the transfer that the veterinary profession continues to have a say in the future development of the qualification."

Those students still in the process of completing the old NVQ qualifications, the accreditation of which is due to run out in 2013, will continue to be serviced by the RCVS.

As the professional regulator, the College will continue to issue RCVS certificates and badges to those who have successfully completed a registerable qualification - such as an approved vocational qualification run by another awarding body, or an RCVS-recognised veterinary nursing degree.

The Advanced Diploma in Veterinary Nursing will be unaffected by the change as the qualification is awarded by the College under its Royal Charter powers.

The RCVS) has announced that 5 candidates are standing in this year's RCVS VN Council elections - an increase of one from last year.

The candidates are:

• Amanda-Jane Erne
• Tammy Ford
• Hilary Orpet
• Amber Richards
• Megan Whitehead

Kathy Kissick, Chairman of VN Council, said: "I'm really pleased there is an increase in VN candidates this year, especially on the back of the marked increase in VN turnout that we saw in last year's elections. With all the changes continuing to face the VN profession, I can't stress enough how important it is for all veterinary nurses to get involved in our Council elections and I'd like to wish all five candidates the best of luck!"

In a slightly later start to the voting period this year, ballot papers and candidate details for the elections will be posted on 19 March 2014, and all votes must be cast, either online or by post, by 5pm on Friday, 25 April 2014.

In the meantime, the College is inviting all voters to think about the one question they would like to put to the candidates and submit it in time for this year's 'Quiz the Candidates', to be broadcast by the Webinar Vet at 8:00pm on the evening of 20 March. All questions received will be put to the candidates, who will each then answer two questions of their choice, as well as explaining what they consider sets them apart as a potential Council member.

Questions (one per person) for RCVS VN Council candidates should be submitted to the RCVS by 12 March via its dedicated election websites, available soon at www.votebyinternet.com/VNvote14, on twitter using the hashtag #VNvote14, or by email to VNvote14@rcvs.org.uk.

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is seeking feedback on a new draft Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses.

The new draft Code, which would replace the existing RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses, has been produced by a Working Party set up by the RCVS Advisory Committee to review the Guides for both veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.

It is the benchmark for professional conduct against which registered veterinary nurses will be measured in any hearings on serious professional misconduct held by the recently-introduced VN Disciplinary Committee.

The purpose of the review is to ensure that guidance to the profession, and the public, is clear, for example, using consistent language to distinguish between what must be done and what is advised.

The new Code is a short, principles-based document, using the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe's Code of Conduct as the starting point. It will be supported by additional advice on specific areas of veterinary practice or issues, for example, clinical governance.

The consultation follows an earlier one for a new draft Code for veterinary surgeons that closed at the end of June: the new Code for veterinary nurses follows the format and style of that for veterinary surgeons. Comments made during the veterinary surgeon consultation will be taken account of alongside comments made during this new consultation.

For the first time, the draft proposes that veterinary nurses make a declaration on joining the VN Register, which underlines the primary importance of animal health and welfare: "I PROMISE AND SOLEMNLY DECLARE that my constant endeavour will be to ensure the welfare of animals committed to my care and that I will pursue the work of my profession with integrity and accept my responsibilities to my clients, the public, the profession and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons."

Comments on the proposed draft are invited from the veterinary nursing profession, the veterinary profession and the public, particularly on the issue of whether the Codes for veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons ought to be combined.

Andrea Jeffery, the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council member who led the group tasked with developing the new Code, said: "It is 50 years since the start of the veterinary nursing profession and the changes proposed in the Code reflect the development of our professional role over this time.

"This new Code is a simplified document that focuses on key principles and which will be supported by more detailed guidance. Although it follows the format of the draft Code for veterinary surgeons, it is important that we recognise our unique position as veterinary nurses."

The new Code, together with the consultation paper, can be downloaded at www.rcvs.org.uk/VNcodeconsultation.

Comments should be sent by email to Christopher Murdoch, Secretary to the Guides Review Working Party, at c.murdoch@rcvs.org.uk by Friday, 21 October 2011.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended a London-based veterinary surgeon from the Register for six months, having found that her falsification of clinical records amounted to serious professional misconduct.

At the two-day hearing, Dr Nicola Ersilova was charged with, and admitted to, three separate incidences of false and dishonest clinical record keeping following her treatment of a collapsed cat, whilst working at Vets Now in Thamesmead, London.

The Committee heard how Dr Ersilova had suspected that Lafite the cat, belonging to Mr Yingzhan Xiao, had been poisoned, so administered fluids and treated her with Lidocaine. A lay colleague, who was assisting with the treatment, subsequently observed Dr Ersilova standing staring at the cat, which had stopped breathing, then leaving the room to go and speak to Mr Xiao. The lay colleague's evidence confirmed to the Committee that Lafite's heart was still beating at this point, and that Dr Ersilova was then heard telling Mr Xiao that Lafite had died while being treated. The lay colleague later discovered that Dr Ersilova had listed calcium gluconate on Mr Xiao's bill and not Lidocaine and, when she questioned the entry, Dr Ersilova told her she was worried about getting into trouble if she had listed Lidocaine.

Whilst reporting these irregularities to the senior veterinary surgeon at Vets Now, the lay colleague noticed that Dr Ersilova had also written "CPR unsuccessful" in the notes, although she was certain CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) had not been attempted.

During a subsequent Vets Now investigation, Dr Ersilova admitted adding this false information concerning Lidocaine, calcium gluconate and CPR, saying during interview that she was aware it was serious professional misconduct and that she was prepared to take the consequences. Vets Now reported the matter to the RCVS.

The Committee considered that all evidence before it fully supported the charges against Dr Ersilova, that her conduct was clearly dishonest, and that her actions were inexcusable, especially for someone as experienced as she was. It stated that a veterinary surgeon's duty to make only truthful and accurate records was so manifest and well known to veterinary surgeons that there could be no real excuse to make such false, misleading and dishonest entries.

The Committee highlighted the comment by Dr Ersilova that she knew she had done something wrong but did not expect her colleague to report her, as providing no explanation, or excuse, for doing something which she knew to be wrong.

A number of submissions were made to the Committee in mitigation, including that Dr Ersilova had admitted her dishonesty to both her employers and the Committee; had an otherwise unblemished record over 22 years of practice; had received no immediate financial gain by her actions; and, did not cause any animal suffering.

Accepting these submissions, the Committee nevertheless felt it needed to balance them against other factors. Dr Ersilova's decision to falsify the records was premeditated and had not been taken without an opportunity for full reflection. There were numerous entries in the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct that highlighted the importance of professional integrity and accuracy, and, given the importance which the Code attached to the duty of veterinary surgeons to be truthful and honest in all their dealings with their clients, the Committee found Dr Ersilova's conduct to be "most reprehensible".

Speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, its Vice-Chairman, Professor Sheila Crispin, said: "It is of great importance that the public should be able to retain confidence in the honesty and integrity of members of the profession. Both the public and other members of the profession must be entitled to rely on the truthfulness of what a veterinary surgeon has written in the clinical records of any animal [they have] treated.

"It is [our] decision that the sanction of suspension adequately reflects the seriousness of the [Dr Ersilova's] conduct. The sanction imposed is ... the most appropriate to inform the profession how seriously such dishonest conduct will be taken, because such conduct clearly brings the profession into disrepute and ... cannot and will not be tolerated."

The Committee then concluded that the least period of suspension that could be justified was one of six months.

The RCVS has published a new waiting room poster which details what pet owners and veterinary professionals should expect from each other.

It’s very significant because it’s the first time the College has produced material for practices that highlights the responsibilities of pet owners, as well as those of veterinary surgeons and nurses.

As such, it should be a really useful tool to support the advice given by veterinary surgeons and nurses in practice.

In other words, don’t just stick it on the wall in some hidden part of the waiting room. Display it prominently by the reception desk, and point to it when explaining why owners need to make their own arrangements to bring the animal into the practice in emergency, for example. Or why you can’t prescribe drugs when you haven’t seen the animal for 8 years. 

The idea for the poster was first mooted by Jonathan Wray MRCVS in the forum on VetSurgeon.org, after he’d seen a similar thing produced by the French regulator for veterinary practices in France. 

VetSurgeon.org decided to produce an English version with input from vets as to what they would like a UK version of the poster to say.

On reflection, however, it was always something which would carry so much more clout if it came from the regulator, so we turned the idea over to the RCVS.

To its great credit, the College ran with the idea and had the poster designed and put through its Standards Committee. The result has now been posted to all practices in the UK, with a pdf version available to download from www.rcvs.org.uk/poster. 

The RCVS is now inviting feedback about the poster at communications@rcvs.org.uk.

If you like the poster, I really do urge you drop the College a quick line at that email address and say so. Better still - and I will probably be put on the naughty step for saying this -  cc L.Lockett@rcvs.org.uk and i.holloway@rcvs.org.uk. It was they who took the idea forward and made it happen. I think they deserve a round of applause. 

Northamptonshire-based Gabor Nemes MRCVS has been found not guilty of serious professional misconduct, after posting derogatory remarks about his employer, Mate Toth MRCVS, on Facebook.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee heard two charges against Dr Nemes, the first being that he had posted comments on social media about another veterinary surgeon, his employer, Dr Toth, which were offensive and/or derogatory and/or inappropriate.

The second charge was that Dr Nemes had posted his comments without having sufficient regard to maintaining their confidentiality and/or privacy. 

Dr Nemes admitted the charges, though he did inform the Committee that his admission with respect to the second charge was caveated by the proposition that the comments were posted in private messages on Facebook with a limited membership, namely employees of Healers Veterinary Centre (Dr Toth’s practice).

The Committee noted the Respondent’s admissions as to the charges raised against him and pronounced the facts found proved.

In relation to the first charge, the Committee found that the comments on social media were, without a doubt, highly unprofessional. They included offensive language, were gratuitously personal against Dr Toth, and were made within an online chat which included junior lay staff, all employed by Dr Toth.

This behaviour was seen to directly contravene a numbers of parts of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct, in particular Paragraph 5.3 that states: "Veterinary Surgeons and Veterinary Nurses should not speak or write disparagingly about another Veterinary Surgeon or Veterinary Nurse."

In relation to the second charge, the Committee found that Dr Nemes had paid no regard to maintaining the confidentiality and/or privacy of his malicious and damaging entries to the chat. 

At the outset of his evidence, Dr Nemes admitted that the proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct. The Committee noted however that the question of whether he was guilty of serious professional misconduct or not was in fact a matter for it to decide, notwithstanding his admission.

The Committee considered the fact that the period of time that Dr Nemes was involved in making postings was effectively about two weeks, that his involvement followed his wife’s dismissal from employment (representing a breach of Dr Nemes’ resignation conditions), and that he was very stressed at the time.

It also considered Dr Nemes’ point that he had never anticipated that Dr Toth would see the Facebook Messenger conversation, and that the relevant RCVS supporting guidance to the Code concerning good practice when using social media and online networking forums was only published in late November 2014 when Dr Nemes’ involvement in the conversation was virtually at an end.

In summing up, Ian Green, Chair of the Committee, said: "The Committee carefully considered the circumstances surrounding the Facebook Messenger entries which the Respondent posted from 13 November 2014. It noted that at the time he had handed in his resignation, morale at the practice was very low. The Facebook Messenger chat site had been started amongst the receptionist/animal carers. A perusal of the entries before the Respondent joined on 13 November 2014 demonstrates that morale was low among that group.

"…Notwithstanding the nature of the remarks posted on the Facebook Messenger, which the Committee deplores, it has reached the conclusion that, whilst the Respondent’s behaviour amounts to misconduct and falls short of the standards expected of a member of the veterinary profession, it does not amount to serious misconduct and does not fall far short.

"In the circumstances it has reached the unusual conclusion that, notwithstanding the Respondent’s admission, the appropriate finding is that he is not guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."

The Veterinary Nurses Council of the RCVS is seeking nominations from veterinary surgeons and VNs for its Golden Jubilee award by 8 May 2012.

The award recognises an exceptional contribution made to the veterinary nursing profession and/or a positive contribution to animal welfare. The Golden Jubilee award was inaugurated to mark the 50^th anniversary of veterinary nurse training, in 2011, and the first award was presented to Jean Turner in 2011 for her lifetime contribution to veterinary nursing.

Liz Branscombe, Chairman of the VN Council said: "This is a prestigious award and a great opportunity to recognise someone who has made a positive impact on our profession.

"VN Council feels strongly that the award should be accessible to a wide spectrum of individuals, so nominees could come from veterinary nurses or veterinary surgeons involved in clinical practice, research, teaching or politics - in fact, any aspect of veterinary nursing."

Both veterinary surgeons and VNs are eligible to make nominations, or to be nominated for the Golden Jubilee award; nominations should be received by 8 May 2012. More information, together with the nomination form, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/jubileeaward.

The award will be presented at RCVS Day on 6 July 2012.

The RCVS is seeking the views of veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and members of the public about proposals for a new Royal Charter which would clarify and underpin the role of the College and give it formal recognition as regulator of the veterinary nursing profession.

The new Charter, approved at a meeting of RCVS Council in November, would replace the 1967 Supplemental Charter, with the most far reaching change being a proposal to make veterinary nursing a formally regulated profession on a similar footing to veterinary surgeons. Veterinary nurses would become associates of the College and have the post-nominal letters RVN. The List and the Register of Veterinary Nurses would also be effectively combined, meaning that the 1,100 listed veterinary nurses would join the 10,500 already on the Register.

Under the proposals registered veterinary nurses would continue to need to fulfil certain responsibilities, including abiding by the Code of Professional Conduct and completing an average of 15 hours a year of continuing professional development, and would be subject to RCVS disciplinary procedures.

What's new is that individuals struck off from the Register for serious professional misconduct would no longer be able to give medical treatment or carry out minor surgery under veterinary direction.

As well as changes to the regulation of veterinary nursing, the proposed Charter would also more clearly state the role and remit of the RCVS, for example, in advancing standards through the promotion of continuing professional development and the Practice Standards Scheme.

Professor Stephen May, a member of RCVS Council who led the Legislation Working Party that developed the new Charter proposals, said: "The proposed new Charter represents an historic opportunity to affirm the role of the RCVS, and to provide a modern framework for the future regulation of the professions. I call on veterinary surgeons and nurses, together with other interested stakeholders, to read the consultation documents and support our proposals."

Speaking about the need for change, RCVS President Neil Smith added: "The consultation paper explains why it is time to replace the 1967 Charter with a new version which sets out the role of the College. The present Charter doesn't explain what objects the RCVS should set out to achieve, and it is silent about veterinary nurses. The remit of the College should include being the regulator for the veterinary nursing profession, and we want a new Charter to recognise registered veterinary nurses.

"We hope that the new Charter will provide a solid basis for the work of the College for years to come. We would urge members of the professions and the public to let us know what they think and help us to make sure that we have got it right."

The consultation paper, which contains further details about the proposed Charter, is available to download at www.rcvs.org.uk/consultations. Those who wish to have their say must respond to b.myring@rcvs.org.uk with their comments by Friday 7 February 2014.

The RCVS will also be organising a meeting and a webinar during the consultation period for those who wish to ask questions about the proposals. Those interested in attending a meeting should email b.myring@rcvs.org.uk. The webinar will be held early in 2014 - further details will be on www.rcvs.org.uk in due course.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has struck off the Register a veterinary surgeon who delayed attending a dog that had been run over at a farm, causing her to suffer unnecessarily.

Following a two-day hearing, the Disciplinary Committee found Munhuwepasi Chikosi guilty of unreasonably delaying attending Mitzi, a fourteen-and-a-half-year-old Labrador cross, and of unnecessarily causing her to remain in pain and suffering for at least an hour.

On 9 September 2011, Mr Chikosi had been working as a locum veterinary surgeon at the Vets Now out-of-hours emergency service in Barton-le-Clay, Bedford, when Mitzi's owner telephoned him to say that his dog was severely injured and to request a home visit for the purpose of euthanasia.

At Mr Chikosi's request, the owner attempted to bring Mitzi into the practice using a blanket. However, it was not possible to get Mitzi into a Land Rover, and she uncharacteristically bit the owner's son, so her owner called the practice again.

Mr Chikosi repeated the request to bring the dog in, saying that he was unable to leave the practice because he was looking after other animals, but that he could possibly organise another veterinary surgeon to visit "probably within the next hour or two".

The Committee considered Mr Chikosi's actions in context of the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct 2011, which listed a number of factors for veterinary surgeons to consider when deciding whether to attend an animal away from the practice premises.

These included the likely treatment needed, the possibility of the animal being safely conveyed to the veterinary surgery, the health status of the animal and ability of the owner to manage the animal's pain until veterinary attention could be sought during normal hours, and travelling time for the veterinary surgeon.

However, the Committee found Mr Chikosi had made no enquiries to determine whether Mitzi was in a fit condition to be moved, and offered no advice as to how her condition could be alleviated whilst waiting for the home visit. Further, his advice that Mitzi should be moved on a blanket was wrong, as she may have had an injured back.

The Committee concluded that, from the outset, Mr Chikosi took the stance that he was unable to leave the practice because he was the only veterinary surgeon present.

However, the Committee noted, from the information available, that there were only three in-patients, no critical cases and a qualified veterinary nurse was present. The Committee found there was no good reason why he should not have attended the farm, which was only 10 to 15 minutes' drive away.

The Committee said that, by the time Mitzi's owner called a second time, it was clear that the out-of-hours service was experiencing difficulty finding a second veterinary surgeon but, instead of going to the farm himself, Mr Chikosi waited another hour until the second veterinary surgeon arrived at the out-of-hours service.

Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "The Committee is satisfied that the delay caused Mitzi unnecessary suffering, which was evidenced by her uncharacteristically biting [her owner's] son. [Her owner] had recognised the severity of the injuries and the need for euthanasia as soon as was practicable. [Mr Chikosi's] failure to attend a seriously injured dog promptly in the circumstances described falls far short of the conduct to be expected of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon."

He directed that Mr Chikosi's name be struck off the Register.

The new, non-statutory Register for veterinary nurses opened yesterday. 3329 VNs were automatically included (having been listed with the RCVS since 2003). The remainder joined the list voluntarily.

RVNs are obliged to undertake 45 hours of CPD over 3 years, and to follow the Guide to Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses.

To help promote the new title, the RCVS has sent a poster to all newly registered RVNs to display in their practices. More promotional materials are in the pipeline.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a charge against Nicholas Robert William Horniman MRCVS, a veterinary surgeon from Cinderford, Gloucestershire, that alleged he was guilty of pet insurance fraud, along with one of his clients, and of dishonestly altering clinical records.

The charge was that, between December 1 2008 and June 30 2014, in relation to Cassy, a Labrador retriever belonging to Jayne Bowkett, Mr Horniman:

• suggested to Mrs Bowkett that she take out an insurance policy for the dog using owner's details that were different from those used for its current insurance policy;
• dishonestly arranged for or allowed practice records for the dog in the name of Bowkett to be discontinued and separate records to be started in the name Griffiths;
• and, dishonestly maintained practice records for the dog as if she were different from the one for which previous practice records had been maintained.

The Committee heard that Cassy, who had previously been diagnosed with hip dysplasia, had been registered with Pets Barn Veterinary Group in Gloucestershire in May 2008 when Mr Horniman was the Principal and owner of the three-practice group. Cassy was treated at the Cinderford branch of the practice where she received regular prescriptions for her condition.

At some point in 2008/2009, Mrs Bowkett had relayed concerns to Mr Horniman that her current pet insurance policy needed to be renewed, that the renewed policy would not cover Cassy's existing hip problems and that she would be unable to pay for any future operations herself. It was alleged that, in response to Mrs Bowkett's concerns, Mr Horniman told her that they could take Cassy off the practice computer and put her back on under a different insurance policy in a different name.

Mrs Bowkett took out a policy with Petplan, beginning on 13 August 2009, using her father's details instead of her own. It was alleged that Mr Horniman then arranged for new practice records to be set up in the name 'Cassy Griffiths'. These new records were first used substantively in May 2010 when Cassy returned to the practice with hip problems, following which two separate records were maintained for the dog under 'Cassy Bowkett' and 'Cassy Griffiths'.

In August 2010 Dariusz Drozdz MRCVS, a vet who had treated Cassy several times, had been told by Mrs Bowkett that the dog had two separate records. He told the Disciplinary Committee that he queried this with Mr Horniman who suggested that it was a mistake and that they 'RIP' the name Cassy Bowkett. Mr Drozdz disagreed on this course of action but was told by Mr Horniman to 'leave it to me' and the records were then changed to say that Cassy Bowkett had died.

Mrs Bowkett alleged that, at some point in 2011, Mr Horniman explained to her that it would no longer be possible to claim for treatment for Cassy's hip dysplasia under the Petplan policy in her father's name. However, the policy remained active, and was transferred into Mrs Bowkett's name upon her father's death.

In July 2011 Cassy Griffiths was seen by Jennifer Jones MRCVS, a part-time locum vet at the Cinderford practice, who told the Committee that she was puzzled about why there were very few clinical records relating to the animal. A receptionist explained to her that there were two sets of records for the same dog and that Mr Horniman had instructed her to mark the original pet as having been euthanased and close its records and create a second new record for the dog. Ms Jones tendered her resignation shortly afterwards citing concerns that a pet had been 'reincarnated to ensure continued income from insurance claims'. In November 2011 Ms Jones submitted a formal complaint to the RCVS.

During the course of the hearing the Committee heard evidence from Mrs Bowkett, Mr Drozdz and Ms Jones, amongst others.

In giving evidence Mrs Bowkett admitted that she had knowingly engaged in fraud but maintained that at all times she had acted with the knowledge and on the advice of Mr Horniman. However, the Committee found that she was unable to remember any relevant material dates and was unclear about the chronology of events. It was suggested on several occasions that she was lying to the Committee, which she denied. However, the Committee believed that she took no responsibility for her own fraudulent actions but merely blamed Mr Horniman and that she had a strong motive to engage in the insurance fraud.

In regards to the evidence given by Mr Drozdz the Committee noted that he did not record his suspicions of possible fraud, that he continued to treat Cassy Griffiths after he raised his concerns, and that he appeared to have accepted Mr Horniman's assurance that he had dealt with the issue.

The Committee found that Ms Jones was correct in her suspicions that there was only one dog. However, it felt she offered no evidence to support her suspicion that this was part of Mr Horniman's 'scheme to maximise income for the practice' as she alleged in her witness statement.

The Committee also heard oral evidence from and on behalf of Mr Horniman who categorically denied suggesting to Mrs Bowkett that she commit insurance fraud and attempting to cover this up through the maintenance of two separate records. He maintained that it was not until Ms Jones voiced her concerns that he realised that Cassy Bowkett and Cassy Griffiths were the same dog.

The Committee voiced a number of concerns about Mr Horniman's actions and behaviour and, at times, found his evidence to be unsatisfactory. For example, the Committee found it difficult to understand why 'alarm bells' did not ring that he was dealing with only one dog when he prescribed medication for two almost identical dogs in May 2010 when only one was presented for examination. It also queried why, when he became aware that the insurance policy for Cassy Griffiths was fraudulent, practice records were not updated and no attempt was made to contact Petplan to inform them of this, as is clearly advised by the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct.

Furthermore, the Committee was concerned that, in his correspondence with the RCVS, he was less than transparent, candid and honest. The Committee considered this to be unacceptable behaviour from a professional in dealings with investigations undertaken by the regulatory body.

In making its judgment, the Committee had to make a decision on whose account it felt to be more reliable in regards to the first element of the charge.

Noreen Burrows, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "In coming to its conclusion ... the Committee is faced with conflicting evidence from Mrs Bowkett, who is an admitted fraudster, admits to acting dishonestly and to lying to Petplan. This is in contrast to the evidence from the Respondent, who is of good character, had an unblemished personal record over 23 years and is supported by impressive character references."

The Committee found the evidence of Mrs Bowkett to be "vague, lacking in clarity and inconsistent with the facts" and therefore rejected her evidence concerning the first element of the charge. In regards to the second element of the charge, the Committee was not satisfied that Mr Horniman had arranged for or allowed the records to be changed as was alleged. In regards to the third element it found that, since it had already rejected the charge that Mr Horniman suggested to Mrs Bowkett that she embark upon insurance fraud, it was unlikely that Mr Horniman would have acted dishonestly in the manner alleged.

Noreen Burrows added: "In the light of the above findings, all charges against the Respondent are dismissed."