The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has agreed to accept undertakings from a Dorset veterinary surgeon, Philippa Ann Rodale MBE, in which she requests that her name is removed from the RCVS Register of Veterinary Surgeons with effect from 31 July 2015, and undertakes never to apply to be restored to it.

The Committee met on Monday 17 August, resuming a hearing which had been adjourned on 20 July. The adjournment had been made to allow Ms Rodale time to submit formal responses to the charges against her and indicate whether she agreed with them. In the event, as outlined by a letter from her solicitors received by the College on 14 August, Ms Rodale declined to comment on the charges and did not admit to any of them.

Ms Rodale did not attend the hearing on 17 August, however, the Committee decided to continue in her absence, on the understanding that, as evidenced by her solicitors’ letter, she was fully aware of the hearing and had voluntarily waived her right to be presented and represented.

The original charges related to Ms Rodale’s standards of practice (in relation to issues such as biosecurity, hygiene, in-patient facilities, drug storage and the disposal of hazardous waste, among other things) and also to a test for Intradermal Comparative Tuberculin. The charges relating to her standards of practice did not have complainants, as the College raised the matters itself; with respect to the Tuberculin test charge, the Animal and Plant Health Agency, as the relevant body, raised no objection to the proposed course of accepting undertakings.

In accepting the undertakings, the Committee felt that a contested hearing that could take up to seven days and involve up to eight witnesses for the College and up to three for the Respondent would not be in the public interest. Furthermore, since the 20 July hearing, Ms Rodale had retired and closed her practice. The Committee also noted that there had been no previous disciplinary findings against her, in what was otherwise a long and unblemished career.

Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee is satisfied that the undertakings offered by the Respondent protect the welfare of animals since the Respondent has now retired and is no longer in practice. It is also satisfied that the reputation of the profession is upheld since the undertakings offered go beyond any sanction which the Committee could impose at the conclusion of a contested hearing, were any of the Heads of Charge to be found proved. It considers that it would not be proportionate or in the public interest for there to be a lengthy contested hearing.”

The RCVS has published Fitness to Practise - A Guide for UK Veterinary Schools and Veterinary Students, and is now working to produce an equivalent for veterinary nurse students.

The guide is designed to introduce students to the concept of fitness to practise and help prepare them for professional life. 

Fitness to Practise - A Guide for UK Veterinary Schools and Veterinary Students was developed by an RCVS working party in conjunction with the UK's seven veterinary schools that currently offer an RCVS-approved veterinary degree. 

The guide is split into two parts: the first part provides guidance for veterinary schools on how to recognise and address fitness to practise concerns; the second part sets out the broad principles of fitness to practise that students should follow and which veterinary schools should uphold.

Laura McClintock, an Advisory Solicitor from the RCVS Professional Conduct Department, said: "While we don't regulate veterinary students themselves, we hope that this guidance will prepare future vets for the requirements and standards that we expect from members of a regulated profession and for adhering to our Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance.

"The guide also recognises that each university will have its own specific disciplinary guidelines and procedures, but we hope that this will help promote consistency in their fitness to practise regimes.

"Although we expect any adverse findings made in university fitness to practise proceedings to be declared to us upon application to register, we would take into account the fact that a student is not a fully-fledged professional and would therefore make some allowance for any mistakes and poor judgement when considering whether or not they should join the Register."

The guide can be downloaded for free from www.rcvs.org.uk/studentguide

The RCVS and the BVA have announced the launch of Vet Futures, a jointly funded initiative designed to stimulate discussion about the future of the profession, and help its members prepare for and shape it.

The initiative will draw on the experience and insight of a wide range of individuals and organisations, including veterinary surgeons and nurses, veterinary bodies, farmers, pet owners and other key stakeholders.

The objective is to understand where the provision of veterinary services is currently heading, whether this is in the best interests of the profession, animal owners and the public at large, and what might be done to shape an optimal future for the veterinary team, keeping animal health and welfare at its heart.

In the project's first phase, independent researchers will gather evidence via focus groups, phone interviews and desk-based research, in addition to the gauging of opinion through events, the internet and social media.

This evidence gathering will be followed by an engagement phase, where the profession will be asked for their feedback on initial thoughts; a period of analysis, where a report will be written by the independent researchers; and, finally, there will be an action phase, where key strategic issues will be identified, together with a clear plan for action from the BVA and the RCVS, as well as other organisations and individuals.

Professor Stuart Reid, RCVS President. said: "The RCVS is implementing a programme of reform to make it a first-rate regulator, but how do we also make ours a first-rate profession, that is resilient and agile enough to meet future demands?

"The Vet Futures project will not just be about horizon-scanning, but getting a fix on those issues over the horizon that we may not yet have considered, such as the use of emerging technologies.

"It's an exciting challenge and I am looking forward to members of the veterinary team getting involved so that, together, we can develop an action plan that will deliver a sustainable future for the profession."

John Blackwell, BVA President, said: "It is no secret that the veterinary profession is changing rapidly and that is why the theme for my presidential year is 'driving change and shaping the future'. It is essential that we come together to map out where we want to be as a strong and trusted profession and identify how we can make that happen.

"On such cross-cutting issues it is appropriate that the two leading professional bodies come together to provide joint leadership for the profession, but we are keen to engage as many individuals and stakeholders as possible. It is designed to be a hugely collaborative project and we want to hear voices from across the whole profession and the whole veterinary team."

The project has a dedicated website www.vetfutures.org.uk where the latest events, reports and publications will be found. There will also be a 'topic of the month' for the duration of the project, with controversial opinion-pieces being posted to stimulate debate from within the profession and amongst animal owners and other stakeholders.

The RCVS Mind Matters Initiative (MMI) and the Doctors’ Support Network (DSN) are today marking the first anniversary of their joint '&me' campaign, which aims to tackle mental health stigma in the health professions by encouraging prominent members to speak out about their own experiences.

MMI seeks to address mental health and wellbeing issues within the veterinary profession, while the Doctors’ Support Network provides peer support for doctors and medical students with mental health concerns.

&me was launched this time last year at the Palace of Westminster at an event sponsored by Kevan Jones MP (Labour, North Durham,) who has spoken about his own experiences with depression. 

Overall eleven &me ambassadors have volunteered their own stories with mental ill-health:

• Dr Louise Freeman, tribunal member and vice chair DSN
• Dr Angelika Luehrs, consultant psychiatrist and co-chair DSN
• Dr Jonathan Richardson, group medical director for community services, Northumberland Tyne & Wear NHS Foundation Trust
• Dr Caroline Reed O’Connor, a senior trainee psychiatrist and psychotherapist
• David Bartram, RCVS Council member
• Malcolm Kinnear, consultant psychiatrist and Honorary Senior Clinical Teacher at the University of Dundee
• Rob Pettitt, Senior Lecturer in Small Animal Orthopaedics, University of Liverpool
• Professor Jamie Hacker Hughes, consultant clinical psychologist, psychotherapist, and supervisor
• Dr Cathy Wield, emergency medicine doctor and author
• Dr Susan Atcheson, senior GP
• Steve Carter, Director at Priory Veterinary Surgeons

A number of &me ambassadors will be taking part in an ‘&me live’ session at BSAVA Congress, from 5-8 April 2018 in Birmingham, providing a short overview of their story before taking questions from the audience. The session will take place from 8.30 to 10.10am on Saturday 7 April and will be open to all those attending Congress.

Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO and Mind Matters Director, said: "The feedback our &me ambassadors have received is truly heartening.

"Steve Carter, for example, had both an ex-student and colleague comment on his story thanking him for all he’s done, while a Facebook post about Rob Pettitt reached nearly 25,000 people.

"The campaign highlights how it is possible to recover from mental ill-health and flourish in your career, with the aim of encouraging those at the start of their mental ill-health experience to seek appropriate help, whether that is something profession-specific, such as Vetlife or DSN, or their GP."

Louise Freeman, Co-Chair of the DSN, added: "Many healthcare professionals face similar pressures that can lead to mental ill-health, including long hours, intense pressure, and the nature of the job which requires practitioners to constantly provide care for others, without necessarily recognising the need for self-care at the same time.

"A recurring theme that we’ve seen from these ambassadors’ stories has been that they drew on support from friends and family, and we really hope that this campaign encourages other professionals to seek help if they feel they are struggling."

The campaign is interested in hearing from not only doctors and veterinary surgeons but also nurses, veterinary nurses, dentists, pharmacists and other healthcare professionals who want to open up about their experiences of mental ill-health.

To participate in the campaign, email Dr Louise Freeman on vicechair@dsn.org.uk.

Further information about the ‘&me’ campaign can be found at www.vetmindmatters.org/&me, and a blog by Louise, 'Me and #AndMe', can be found at www.vetmindmatters.org/me-and-andme/.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded County Tyrone based Brian Phelim Mallon MRCVS, after it found a number of charges proved in relation to failing to obtain agreed consent for the euthanasia of a dog, for keeping no clinical records for that dog and for failing to reply to written questions from the owner.

The hearing concerned three separate charges against Mr Mallon. The first charge related to his treatment of a Labrador named Bailey on 15 September 2016 in which he was alleged to have euthanased the animal without the owner’s consent, after having been called out to her home following concerns about Bailey’s arthritis. 

The second charge related to failure to keep adequate clinical records for Bailey between 14 March 2015 and 30 September 2016.

The third charge related to failing to respond adequately to communications regarding Bailey’s treatment from his owner between 15 September 2016 and 6 January 2017.

At the outset of the hearing, Mr Mallon admitted the charge relating to keeping inadequate clinical records. However, he disputed the College’s evidence regarding euthanasing Bailey without his owner’s consent. He claimed to have had previous discussions with the owner’s husband about euthanasia six months prior to the event, that he had been informed that the owner had mentioned a possible need for euthanasia in a phone call earlier that day and that, on attending the premises, the owner’s mother had mentioned a need to put Bailey down. During the course of the hearing, Mr Mallon accepted that these incidents could not have reasonably amounted to consent. 

The Committee also heard and accepted evidence that the owner’s mother, who was present when Mr Mallon visited, had wished to contact her daughter to inform her about the planned euthanasia but that Mr Mallon proceeded to euthanase the animal regardless. The Committee also noted there was no contemporaneous clinical records nor any signed consent form for the procedure. Furthermore, the Committee found no evidence that there was a need to put Bailey down immediately and no reason why Mr Mallon could not have waited until the owner was present and had given consent.

Regarding the third charge, the Committee heard that the communications between Mr Mallon and the owner amounted to a telephone call on 15 September and a letter from the owner dated 16 September in which she asked a number of questions about Bailey’s treatment. The Committee accepted that, during the phone call, the owner had made a number of threats to Mr Mallon that had caused him to be fearful for himself and his property. Furthermore, the Committee found that there were a number of points in the subsequent letter to which he could have responded and the Committee noted that, when he was giving evidence, Mr Mallon expected the owner to apologise to him and withdraw the threats before he would engage with her complaint. The Committee therefore found the charge proved.

After finding the charges proved the Committee then went on to consider whether, individually and cumulatively, they constituted serious professional misconduct. It found this to be the case in respect of all three charges. Commenting on the first charge Jane Downes, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "He should have allowed the owner to come to an informed decision. He had an opportunity to obtain informed consent and he failed in this regard. By failing to take this opportunity he overrode the possibility of allowing [the owner] the right to choose whether to be present or to discuss Bailey’s prognosis."

The Committee then went on to consider the sanction for Mr Mallon and heard from a number of clients and professional colleagues who spoke to his skill, care, passion for animal welfare and high standing in his community. The Committee also considered 30 written testimonials from clients. In mitigation, the Committee also considered Mr Mallon’s otherwise unblemished 30-year career, the fact it was a single isolated event related to one animal and the fact that there was no evidence of systemic or repeated behaviour.

Jane Downes added: "The Committee concluded that the appropriate and proportionate sanction is a reprimand in this case. The Committee is confident that Mr Mallon will not repeat the conduct identified in this case again. The Committee wishes to advise Mr Mallon of the need to reflect on the outcome of this case, the need to have clear communication systems in place at this practice that are effective so as to avoid any possibility of miscommunication. The Committee further advises Mr Mallon of the need to be familiar and comply with all aspects of the Code [of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons] and its associated guidance, particularly in respect of keeping clinical records, informed consent and effective complaint management."

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has decided 'no further action' in a case against Bristol-based Nikolay Kirilov Radev MRCVS.

The committee considered 5 separate charges against Dr Radev, relating to his treatment of a Yorkshire Terrier and Shih Tzu cross called Pickles at a Vets4Pets veterinary practice in Oxford between 5 October 2015 and 1 November 2015. The charges related to Dr Radev failing to provide adequate and/or appropriate care to the animal and failure to keep detailed clinical records. 

After hearing the evidence from Dr Radev and the complainant, the College submitted that it wished to withdraw charges 1(i) and 1(ii) on the basis of insufficient evidence. In addition, Dr Radev had already admitted charges: 1(iii)(b), 1(iv)(d), 1(v), 4(i)(a) and 4(ii)(a) but denied the remaining charges. Of these remaining charges the Committee found charges 1(iv)(a), 2(i), 2(iv), 3(i) and 3(ii) proven with the rest not being proven. 

The charges admitted or found proven were that Dr Radev:

(1) On 5 October 2015, failed to provide adequate and/or appropriate care and/or treatment to Pickles, more particularly in that he:

(iii) Failed to offer and/or undertake adequate investigations into Pickles’ condition, more particularly in that he failed to offer and/or undertake:

(b)   urine tests;

(iv) Failed to put in place and/or document an adequate management plan for Pickles, more particularly in relation to:

(a) adequate direction and/or advice regarding a review of Pickles’ condition within a clearly defined number of days;

(d) collection of urine at home for analysis on review at the practice;

(v) Having noted that he suspected renal disease, prescribed meloxicam when the same was contraindicated for dogs with renal disease; 

(2)   On 28 October 2015, failed to provide adequate and/or appropriate care and/or treatment to Pickles, more particularly in that he:

(i) Failed to take and/or record an adequate history from Mrs Pancott in relation to Pickles’ condition and/or clinical signs since 5 October 2015;

(iv) Failed to provide adequate direction and/or advice regarding a date for a review of Pickles’ condition within a clearly defined number of days;

(3) On 30 October 2015, having been informed that Mrs Pancott had telephoned the practice with concerns about Pickles, including blood in the faeces;

(i) Failed to note the matter in Pickles’ medical records;

(ii) Failed to take sufficient steps to obtain more information from Mrs Pancott or to ensure that Mrs Pancott was advised to seek veterinary attention for Pickles in relation to her concerns;

(4) On 1 November 2015, failed to provide adequate and/or appropriate care and/or treatment to Pickles, more particularly in that he:

(i) Failed to interpret the blood tests adequately and/or take appropriate and adequate action in relation to the results of those blood tests, more particularly with regards to:

(a) blood glucose;

(ii) Failed to offer and/or undertake adequate investigations into Pickles’ condition, more particularly in that he failed to:

(a) offer and/or undertake urine tests.

In considering these charges the Disciplinary Committee found that only charge 4(ii)(a) – namely the failure to correctly interpret and act upon the results of a blood glucose test – amounted to serious professional conduct with the rest not passing the threshold of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. The Committee did not consider that in addition the cumulative effect of all the proven charges taken together amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In relation to the cumulative effect of all the proven charges Professor Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee noted that Dr Radev had made errors in relation to one patient but on four separate occasions. These were, for the most part, individual failures at the lower end of the scale of seriousness. Taking into account all of the failings, the Committee in its judgement did not consider that the nature and number of errors and the period of time over which they took place justified a cumulative finding of disgraceful conduct."

In considering the sanction for Dr Radev the Committee took into account a number of mitigating circumstances including the fact that Dr Radev had undertaken suitable training and development in the areas in which he made mistakes, had demonstrated good insight into his conduct and had made some open and frank admissions early on in proceedings. It also considered that the one charge that was found to be serious professional misconduct was a single, isolated mistake linked to Dr Radev’s inexperience.

Professor Barr said: "The Committee considered that taking ‘no further action’ was appropriate and proportionate having considered the history of the case, the Committee’s overall findings and the good reports of Dr Radev’s performance in the two years since the matter which had led to the finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."

The decision to take no further action was also influenced by the length of time it had taken the charges to be heard by the Committee, the positive character references about Dr Radev from professional colleagues and the fact he was unlikely to repeat such conduct in the future.

The RCVS has launched the new Practice Standards Scheme (PSS), which is now open for applications for both practice accreditations and the new system of PSS awards.

Speaking after today’s launch at the London Vet Show, which over 200 veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and practice managers attended, Practice Standards Group chair Jacqui Molyneux, said: "The new Scheme is all about offering a pathway to improvement for practices of all shapes and sizes that want to aspire to excellence, and then highlighting these achievements to the animal-owning public in a way that is clear and easy to understand.

"Over half of all veterinary practice premises in the UK are already RCVS-accredited, which is fantastic for a voluntary scheme, but we’d really like to help more practices to get on board. I hope that the improvements and exciting new benefits that we’ve developed will make the Scheme even more rewarding for existing members, and encourage more people to join."

The College says that the main changes to the scheme have been based on feedback from the profession and input from the Practice Standards Group (PSG), with the dual aims of making it more accessible for those practices which aren’t yet PSS members, and even more rewarding for those who are already accredited.

Whilst retaining the existing accreditation levels across small animal, equine and farm animal practices (current RCVS-accredited practices will be automatically transferred to the new Scheme), a new modular structure helps to make the Scheme more flexible and ensure all types of veterinary practice – from ambulatory services to veterinary hospitals – can join. This structure also recognises the contributions of the whole practice team, helping to raise standards across the board.

Once accredited, practices can now apply for a range of optional awards that focus on outcomes and behaviours in specific areas, such as ‘In-patient Service’, ‘Team and Professional Responsibility’ and ‘Client Service’. Designated at either ‘Good’ or ‘Outstanding’, these awards should help clients understand where a practice excels, and what skills and services are on offer, enabling them to make choices based on their needs and preferences.

The RCVS has also recruited and trained a new team of assessors, who will take more of an interest in listening to practice staff rather than just checking paperwork and equipment. It has also developed an online administration and support tool – nicknamed Stanley – to provide document storage, a calendar and a self-assessment function, to make the accreditation and awards application processes quicker and easier to manage.

As an introductory offer, the RCVS is now inviting applications from practices that would be willing to help with a final round of testing of the new Scheme, to be in with a chance to win one of 20 free assessment days, worth £350. The offer is open until Friday 4 December, and the first 20 practices drawn at random on 7 December will be allocated the free assessments. 

Full details about the draw, the new Scheme and how to apply for accreditation and/or awards are available at www.rcvs.org.uk/newpss. The new promotional video shown above can also be viewed here.

The RCVS has published a guide for student veterinary nurses and providers of veterinary nursing education regarding fitness to practise issues.

The new guide, entitled Fitness to Practise – A Guide for UK Providers of Veterinary Nursing Education and Student Veterinary Nurses, was produced by a Working Party comprising representatives of the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council as well as representatives from a variety of training providers and the British Veterinary Nursing Association. Although each training provider will have in place its own specific guidelines and procedures for dealing with fitness to practise cases, training providers are encouraged to have regard to this guidance as an example of good practice.

The guide, an equivalent of a previously published guide for student veterinary surgeons, is split into two parts: the first part provides guidance for training providers on recognising and addressing fitness to practise concerns; the second part sets out the broad principles of fitness to practise that student veterinary nurses should follow, and that training providers should expect and uphold.

Kathy Kissick, Vice Chair of Veterinary Nurses Council and Chair of the Working Party that produced the guide, says: “I am delighted with the completion of the student veterinary nurse fitness to practise guide. This guide will enable student veterinary nurses and educators to have clear guidelines and procedures to enable professional standards to be established and maintained throughout training, regardless of the training route being undertaken.

“This guide was produced with the input of veterinary nurse educational institutions and will help all training providers to prepare their veterinary nursing students for the rigours of professional registration and regulation.”

The guide can be downloaded for free from www.rcvs.org.uk/publications.

The Royal College has announced that a Legislative Reform Order (LRO) to reconstitute its disciplinary committees separately from its Council has been signed by Defra Minister David Heath, and will come into force on 6 April 2013.

The LRO will amend Part I of Schedule 2 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (VSA) and require that the RCVS Preliminary Investigation and Disciplinary Committees are made up of veterinary surgeons and lay members who are not RCVS Council members, and who are appointed independently.

This will ensure that the same group of people is not responsible for setting the rules, investigating complaints and adjudication, and will bring lay people formally into the Preliminary Investigation Committee.

The LRO will also allow the RCVS to increase the pool of people available to investigate complaints and sit on disciplinary hearings, reducing the workload on the individual Committee members whose primary appointment is to RCVS Council.

The RCVS has been working on the LRO with Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) officials since late 2010, and the Order was based on consultations undertaken by the RCVS and Defra.

According to the College, the Order was commended at every stage of Parliamentary scrutiny as an effective means to address the single biggest deficit of the VSA and to improve how the RCVS regulates the profession. During debate in Grand Committee of the House of Lords on 10 January, the RCVS received considerable praise for its strenuous efforts to modernise under the constraints of the present legislation, and the LRO received unanimous support.

Following the Order coming into force, the first external members will join the Disciplinary and Preliminary Investigation Committees from July 2013. After a two-year transition period, members of the RCVS Council will become ineligible for membership of these committees. Information about how to apply to join these committees will be available shortly.

President Jacqui Molyneux said: "I am delighted the LRO has been made and I am immensely thankful for the hard work of the Defra team and my colleagues in the College. The LRO is the single biggest reform to the regulation of veterinary surgeons since the 1966 Act, and it will bring the RCVS in line with regulatory best practice and improve the perception of the independence of the RCVS disciplinary processes."

The RCVS has announced that it will be holding a free lunchtime webinar next week about its alternative dispute resolution (ADR) trial and its outcomes.

The webinar, titled ‘Who ADRs wins’, takes place at 1pm on Monday 7 December via The Webinar Vet and will be presented by RCVS Registrar Gordon Hockey and RCVS Council member Niall Connell who was part of the Advisory Panel to the ADR trial.

The trial, which has been administered by Ombudsman Services, began in November 2014 in order to develop a system that addresses the many concerns received by the RCVS about the conduct of veterinary surgeons which it cannot deal with under its statutory powers.

During the webinar, Gordon and Niall will explain the roles of Ombudsman Services and the Advisory Panel, as well as examine the outcomes of some of the concerns handled by the trial. 

They will also discuss the future of the ADR scheme. Following the presentation, listeners will have the opportunity to put their questions to the speakers.

Visit www.thewebinarvet.com/the-rcvs-alternative-dispute-resolution-scheme to register for the webinar. A recording of the webinar will be made available shortly after the event.

The RCVS has announced the launch of its final consultation in the latest review of the Practice Standards Scheme (PSS), and is seeking feedback on the proposed detail of the revised Scheme.

The College says that in particular, it needs feedback about the new system of Awards for RCVS-accredited practices.

Following the College's commitment to review the PSS every five years, this is the second such review since the voluntary practice accreditation system was launched in 2005. After gaining extensive feedback from PSS members and the wider profession through previous consultations and focus groups, and the collaborative approach taken by members of the Practice Standards Group, there have been a number of significant redevelopments to the Scheme, which are due to be rolled out later this year.

The revised Scheme will no longer just consider facilities and equipment at a particular site, but will focus on all areas of the practice, emphasising the outcomes and behaviours that impact on the veterinary care of animals. Whilst the existing accreditation categories of Core Standards, General Practice and Veterinary Hospital will remain, the revised Scheme will provide a pathway for practices to improve and more easily demonstrate where they excel.

Jacqui Molyneux, Chairman of the Practice Standards Group said: "One of the most significant additions to the Scheme is that practices will be able to apply to be inspected for additional Awards in specific areas. If successful, they would then be able to promote themselves as 'Good' or 'Outstanding' in these areas to their clients.

"The main aim of this consultation is to seek feedback on the Awards, and to check we have set the Awards criteria appropriately, so I would urge the profession to have a look at the proposed framework, and to send us their views."

The consultation, which is available to complete via the RCVS website, also seeks feedback on the guidance that's provided to help practices meet the Scheme requirements, along with a small number of questions about specific areas. The requirements themselves remain largely unchanged, so are not subject to review.

The modules, requirements, guidance and Awards framework for small animal, equine and farm animal practices are detailed in three separate documents that are available to download from www.rcvs.org.uk/pssconsult2015. This page also contains further details about the consultation and instructions on how to submit feedback.

The consultation is open until 5pm on Monday, 23 March 2015.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against a Southampton veterinary surgeon after finding him not guilty of serious professional misconduct, saying at all times that he acted in the best interests of a dog under his care.

At the start of the five-day hearing, the charges against Edward Gillams MRCVS were that, whilst in practice at Vets Now in Southampton in 2011, he discharged a dog that he knew or ought to have known was in no fit state to be discharged, and, at the same time, failed to provide adequate advice and information to the dog's owners, particularly with regard to an alternative plan to discharge and treatment options.

The dog, an Italian Spinone called Zola, had first been taken to the Vets4Pets veterinary clinic in Southampton at 4.30pm on 2 November 2011, where gastric torsion was diagnosed. During a subsequent gastrotomy, 3kg of sausages and plastic wrappings were removed. Zola was discharged three days later, with a guarded prognosis from the operating veterinary surgeon. Zola's condition deteriorated that same evening, so his owners called the Vets4Pets practice and were referred to their out-of-hours provider, Vets Now, where Mr Gillams was on duty. On admitting Zola, the only information available to Mr Gillams was what the dog's owners were able to tell him.

The Committee heard differing witness accounts from the dog's owners and from Mr Gillams regarding what tests and examinations were to be performed, and what advice and options were suggested. Ultimately, Zola was hospitalised overnight (despite some reluctance for this from one of his owners), given pain relief and antibiotics and placed on a drip; he was then to be collected by his owners first thing for transfer back to Vets4Pets. The next morning, Zola was described as 'sternally recumbent but responsive', holding his head up but not moving and not making any attempt to get up. Mr Gillams carried Zola to his owner's car for transport back to the Vets4Pets practice. He considered that he had discharged his duty to provide advice, as this was given the night before and in the circumstances prevailing in the morning there was no obligation to repeat this. Zola died on the journey between the two practices.

Before reaching a decision, the Committee considered, in detail, the expert evidence of witnesses for both the College and Mr Gillams, which provided some conflicting views on Mr Gillams' actions. It also referred to the RCVS guidance available to Mr Gillams at the time through the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct 2010.

The Committee noted that both experts agreed that Mr Gillams could not have known Zola was about to die when he discharged him and that it was a difficult decision for Mr Gillams to make, but expressed differing views about the fitness of the dog to be discharged and whether it was in its best interests to be discharged. The Committee rejected the contention that Mr Gillams ought to have known that Zola was not fit to be discharged, and instead considered appropriate his decision to discharge him into the care of his original veterinary surgeon. It felt that continuity of care would actually be better maintained in this manner, rather than a third veterinary surgeon taking over the case.

Regarding provision of adequate advice, the Committee accepted Mr Gillams' evidence that he was frustrated that the owners refused him permission to undertake the diagnostic work necessary to treat Zola effectively, and that he had no other clinical information to work with.

Chairing and speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, its Vice-Chairman, Ms Judith Webb, said: "The Committee expresses its sincere condolences to [the owners] for the loss of their much loved family pet Zola and recognises that this loss caused the family great distress."

Ms Webb added: "The Committee accepts that [Mr Gillams] discharged his obligations to Zola and to [his owners] in a manner wholly consistent with the standards of a competent veterinary surgeon in difficult circumstances. He leaves with no stain on his character or professional ability."

The full detail of the Committee's decision is available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).