View all veterinary jobs
Mr Dobson was struck off in 2021 after the DC found that he'd carried out an act of veterinary certification after being removed from the Register for non-payment, failed to have professional indemnity insurance in place and failed to respond to requests from the RCVS about these things.
Mr Dobson submitted a restoration application by email at the start of June, but then didn't reply to any further correspondence from the College, didn't provide any detail supporting his application, didn't attend the hearing and didn't contact the RCVS to explain why.
The Committee decided to go ahead with the restoration hearing in Mr Dobson's absence.
It decided that although Mr Dobson's email on 2nd June 2023 did suggest that he accepted the original findings for which he was removed from the Register, there was not enough evidence of remorse or insight into the the failings which led to him being struck off in the first place, or that he had attempted to keep his continuing professional development (CPD) up-to-date or that, if restored, he would pose no risk to animal health and welfare.
Paul Morris, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Disciplinary Committee will only restore the name of the applicant veterinary surgeon to the Register where the applicant has satisfied it that he or she is fit to return to unrestricted practice as a veterinary surgeon and that restoration is in the public interest.
“The Committee’s real concerns about this application and this applicant are that it has before it no evidence of any value or substance to satisfy either of these criteria.
"There is no basis on which the Committee could conclude that the applicant is fit to return to unrestricted practice.
"In turn, there is no basis on which the Committee could conclude that it is in the public interest that this applicant’s name be restored to the Register.
“It is of importance to the profession and to members of the public that restorations to the Register should only occur when the applicant has established by clear evidence that the criteria which are set out in the public documents produce by the College have been satisfied.”
He added: “Having regard to the above criteria and its findings on them, the Committee considers that it remains the case that the protection of the public and the public interest requires that his name be not restored to the Register and therefore refuses this application.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The grant has been awarded to Dr Faye Didymus and Dr Jackie Hargreaves (pictured) from Leeds Beckett University who aim to address a potential lack of understanding surrounding the importance of mental health education in the learning paths of student veterinary nurses.
This will be done through a scoping review of mental health education during student veterinary nursing curricula.
The review will be supplemented by interviews with tutors, veterinary nurse students and qualified veterinary nurses to understand their experiences of and levels of exposure to mental health education.
It is hoped this research will culminate in a set of evidence-based recommendations for how mental health education for student veterinary nurses could be enhanced.
Dr Faye Didymus said: “Maintaining good mental health is vital for job satisfaction, retention, and performance, and integrating mental health education into veterinary nursing courses is one way that veterinary nurse mental health can be supported, as it allows people to develop essential skills that will benefit their lives beyond education.”
“However, little is known about what mental health education is provided across veterinary nursing diplomas and degrees or if there is a consistent approach.
"Throughout the research, we aim to build a clearer picture of the current provision, so we can create evidence-based recommendations for the optimisation of veterinary nursing education.”
Mind Matters Initiative Manager, Lisa Quigley, said: “Much of the research into veterinary mental health has so far been centred around veterinary surgeons so we were keen to fund a veterinary nurse focussed project to help close that knowledge gap.
"The veterinary field encompasses the entire veterinary team, and we cannot afford to overlook a group that makes up much of the working veterinary population and who are vital for the functioning of the sector. It is essential that we support our veterinary nurses throughout their careers and provide them with the knowledge and tools to look after their own mental wellbeing from the outset.
“Research plays a major role in this, and we are delighted to be funding a fully nurse-based project.”
https://vetmindmatters.org/mind-matters-mental-health-research-symposium-2023.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton was removed from the Register after his Kent practice was found to have unhygienic and unsterile conditions as well as poor record keeping, although he has always disputed this, maintaining that he was not actually practising at the time of the inspection.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton made an application for restoration on the basis that he did not want to be restored to the Register in order to practise veterinary surgery, but so that he could more easily achieve recognition from academics and drug companies for his work on herbal and natural remedies.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton's dispute over the original findings of the 1994 case was ruled inadmissible.
In considering his application, the Committee took into account the fact that he had not accepted the original findings from 1994 nor had he, over the course of his various applications for restoration, shown any insight into his original conduct or the serious concerns about his fitness to practice raised in previous restoration hearings.
It also considered that Mr Seymour-Hamilton had been off the Register for 29 years and would need to have demonstrated prolonged, intensive and formal training to ensure he met the Day One Competences required of a veterinary surgeon.
The College submitted that he had made no such attempts and so would pose a significant risk to animal health and welfare if he were allowed to practice again.
The Committee also considered that Mr Seymour-Hamilton had indicated that he had practised veterinary surgery while off the Register – including conducting two spay procedures in Calais, France – and had used his own animals to try out new and untested ‘herbal remedies’.
The College submitted that this indicated someone who didn’t have due regard to the importance of the current level of skills, experience and qualifications required in order to undertake veterinary surgery competently, and therefore posed a risk to animal health and welfare.
Dr Kathryn Peaty MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The College invited the Committee to consider that where, as here, some 29 years have passed since this veterinary surgeon has practised, there has been no intensive, and prolonged re-training, no acceptance of the original findings and no insight into concerns about his fitness to practise, there will inevitably be a serious risk to the welfare of animals and the wider public interest if the applicant is restored to the Register.
The Committee agrees, and considers that the applicant has not shown the required insight as to the steps he needs to take to return to safe veterinary practice.”
Accordingly, the Committee decided that it would not be in the public interest to restore Mr Seymour-Hamilton to the Register.
She said: “My theme will be focussed on recruitment and particularly widening participation, as one of the three themes of the RCVS Workforce Action Plan.
"I want to get out during my presidential year and talk to school children and teachers, especially head teachers at their conferences, to make them aware of the opportunities that are available to a veterinary science graduate.
“I want to continue to work with the Veterinary Schools Council’s Widening Participation Vet Schools Network to make school children from all backgrounds aware, whether they are from a large, single-sex private school, or a mixed-faith inner-city comprehensive, that veterinary science is accessible to them.
“A veterinary science degree equips graduates with the appropriate skillset to follow a myriad of different career paths.
"For example, in clinical practice caring for people’s beloved pets or working with farmers to produce high-welfare food in an economical and sustainable way. Not to mention groundbreaking research into human and animal diseases, public health to help safeguard food security, the pharmaceutical industry to develop new and innovative treatments, and the armed forces to maintain the health and welfare of military working animals. I could go on.
“As professions, and this means not just veterinary surgeons but veterinary nurses, we need to get out there and sell ourselves to the wider public.
"We have made a start, but we need to become more inclusive and diverse.
"We need to do some myth-busting about the real requirements needed to be a vet or vet nurse.
"There is no doubt you do need to have good A levels to study veterinary medicine, but, beyond that, bright students from any background can join our professions.
"You can be a veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse if you are black or white; Muslim or Christian; and from any socioeconomic background.”
Sue's speech is available to read in full at www.rcvs.org.uk/features.
Mr Antonovs faced three charges.
The first was that in September 2020 whilst in practice at Beverley Vets4Pets, he attended work when under the influence of alcohol.
The second was that between September and December 2020, whilst at Peel Veterinary Clinic, he attended work on two occasions when under the influence of alcohol.
The final charge was that between February 2021 and February 2023, Mr Antonovs failed to respond adequately to requests from the RCVS regarding concerns raised about his conduct and/or health.
Mr Antonovs admitted the facts of the charges and the Committee decided that the facts amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee therefore decided, in the particular circumstances of this case, to impose a reprimand and warning as to his future conduct on the basis that it would be proportionate in order to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.
The full details of the hearing and the Committee’s decision can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
During the webinar, which took place earlier this month, senior officers and staff from the College explained the new guidance, what it will mean for the profession, and answered questions submitted by delegates.
The webinar was chaired by RCVS President Dr Melissa Donald MRCVS with a panel comprising Standards Committee Chair Linda Belton MRCVS, RCVS Registrar Eleanor Ferguson, and RCVS Head of Standards Gemma Kingswell.
The webinar included an overview of the main changes, the considerations to take into account when prescribing POM-Vs remotely, the circumstances under which POM-Vs cannot be prescribed remotely, the prescription of antibiotics, antifungals, antiparasitics and antivirals, and how the guidance will be enforced.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: “We have also now published a range of practice-based scenarios to help explain how the new guidance should be followed in various circumstances, and in relation to different species.
"These scenarios cover a variety of different situations, including how the guidance applies to two or more practices with mutual clients, consultancy services and the prescription of long-term controlled drugs.”
A second webinar will be held on Monday 17th July, with priority for those who wanted to attend the June webinar but were not able to do because it was over-subscribed.
www.rcvs.org.uk/undercare
They include the launch of the RCVS Academy, reforms to the RCVS concerns investigation process, the publication of the Workforce Action Plan and guidance for universities on supporting Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic veterinary students, ongoing work on new under care guidance, the development of new sustainability standards for the Practice Standards Scheme, and the purchase of the future headquarters for the RCVS.
The report also contains an update from the College’s charity partner RCVS Knowledge, details of RCVS financial management policies, and an independent auditor’s report on the College.
The Annual Report and Financial Statements will be formally adopted by RCVS Council at its Annual General Meeting on Friday 7th July at One Great George Street.
Veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses are able to submit questions about the Annual Report.
The College says that subject to time, submitted questions will be answered by the College on the day, or followed up in writing after the event.
Questions should be emailed to Deborah Rowlanes, RCVS Events Manager, on d.rowlanes@rcvs.org.uk no later than 5pm on Tuesday 4th July.
If you want to attend, register at: www.rcvs.org.uk/events.
The symposium will be launched by Dr Leah Quinlivan (pictured right), a research fellow and chartered psychologist at the University of Manchester.
Her talk ‘Evidence-based care for people who have self-harmed: risk prediction, psychosocial assessments, and aftercare’, will outline the importance of improving mental health services for patients who have harmed themselves, via discussion of evidence, policy, and practice for risk prediction, psychosocial assessment, and aftercare.
Leah's talk will be followed by presentations delivered by veterinary mental health researchers from across the UK and Europe.
Topics will include post-Covid wellbeing amongst veterinary professionals, the impact of companion animal euthanasia, workplace stressors and how they change with career stage, and the quality of mental health support received by veterinary nurses.
Lisa Quigley, Mind Matters Initiative project manager, said: “This year, the event promises once more to be a supportive and thought-provoking event, where we can gather to share findings, information and best practice for the good of the professions.
“The recent publication of MMI’s five-year strategy has outlined our recognition that we need to expand the conversation beyond mental health awareness and into looking at more systemic and cultural issues, as well as exploring how the insights gained from research might be implemented in practice.
"These ambitious aims are reflected in the breadth of the talks and presentations at the symposium and so I look forward to hearing more from those who share our values and aims, and to continuing the conversation about how and where we can do more.
Developed in partnership with the Veterinary Client Mediation Service (VCMS), the course uses practical examples based on real-life experiences.
The course shows how to assess complaints from a client’s perspective and how building client relationships can help defuse complaints.
Jennie Jones, Head of VCMS, said: "Leveraging insights from the VCMS and involving our entire team with its production has enabled us to develop highly effective materials that ensure veterinary professionals are well-equipped to manage complaints."
The course takes one hour to complete.
academy.rcvs.org.uk
The group is being set up to ensure that the College meets its objective of working in the public interest, initially as a 12-month pilot.
Louise Allum, RCVS Council Member and Chair of the Public Advisory Group, said: “Animal owners and keepers play an essential role in supporting animal welfare, and it is therefore not only right, but necessary, that we actively seek to inform the public of our activities and take their opinion into account when making wide-reaching decisions.
“With the profession's help, we are inviting animal owners and keepers from all backgrounds - from companion animal, to equine and farm – to be a part of our Public Advisory Group to help us actively engage with members of the public and to ensure that the veterinary profession continues to meet the needs of clients and animals alike.
"We also hope that, by involving animal owners and keepers in our work, we can improve the ways in which we communicate our messages to veterinary service users."
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, added: “Through the Public Advisory Group, we hope to gain greater insight into the experiences and opinions of animal owners and keepers to determine how we can work together to achieve what is essentially, a joint goal.
"We all care deeply about animal health and welfare and should therefore be united in our mission to uphold high standards.
“We are looking for a pool of around 30 individuals, including, but not limited to, owners and keepers of companion animals, and equine and production animals, to join our group.
"We are asking veterinary professionals to help us recruit animal owners and keepers from all walks of life, by kindly sharing information about this initiative with anyone they feel would be an appropriate, enthusiastic and engaged member of the Group.”
For more information on the Public Advisory Group, including terms of reference and how to apply, visit www.rcvs.org.uk/pag or email Lisa Moffatt on l.moffatt@rcvs.org.uk.
The deadline for applications is 7 June 2023.
Ms Wicksteed faced five charges.
The first charge concerned her conviction in May 2021, following a jury trial at Oxford Crown Court, for one count of theft and two counts of fraud for which she was sentenced to a two-year community order, including 150 hours of unpaid work, and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £2,800, £177.07 to Barclays Bank and £85 as a victims’ surcharge.
She admitted this charge at the outset of the RCVS Disciplinary Committee hearing.
The second charge concerned the allegation that, in October 2015, she was made subject to an ‘adult restorative disposal’ (‘ARD’) following thefts from Tesco Extra Stores.
This charge was found proven after Ms Wicksteed admitted in her evidence to the Committee that she had signed the ARD.
The third charge concerned the allegation that, in January 2018, she stole from a Debenhams department store and, in March that year, was given a formal police caution.
This charge was found proven by the Committee.
The fourth charge was that, in her annual renewal declarations made each year with the RCVS from 2016 through 2021, she had failed to declare the ARD and the caution.
However, under the Code of Professional Conduct, veterinary surgeons are not required to declare ARDs as they are not convictions, cautions or adverse findings.
Ms Wicksteed was therefore cleared of failing to declare her ARD.
Nevertheless, the Committee found that she had failed to declare her police caution in her annual renewal declarations.
The fifth charge was that in failing to make declarations upon renewing her registration, she was dishonest, misleading and had failed to take adequate steps to inform the College of the caution and the ARD.
The Committee found this charge proven in respect of the caution only and not the ARD.
The Committee then considered whether the first charge, which Ms Wicksteed admitted, rendered her unfit to practise, and whether the remaining charges that were found proven amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee noted that the conviction concerned three elements of dishonesty: theft and two counts of fraud.
"It involved stealing from a junior colleague at work, and the fraudulent activity – the use of the colleague’s card - was carefully planned in that, when it was used, it was in respect of items which did not cumulatively cost in excess of £30 and therefore did not require knowledge of the card holder’s PIN.
"It was used twice in the Tesco Store. Between those times, Ms Wicksteed changed her appearance by taking off her coat and waited some 20 minutes.”
She added: “The Committee accepted the College’s argument that members of the public would find it abhorrent for a member of the profession to have acted in this way – stealing from a junior colleague a card held under a Power of Attorney for her brother, and spending money using that card, deliberately keeping each transaction under the contactless limit to try to conceal the conduct.
"Honesty and integrity is one of the five key principles which must be maintained by members of the profession.”
The Committee found that this charge alone rendered Ms Wicksteed unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
The Committee also found that the proven elements of the remaining charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, both individually and cumulatively.
The Committee then considered the sanction for Ms Wicksteed.
In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee considered that there was actual harm to a vulnerable person in the case of the conviction for theft and fraud, the misconduct and dishonesty it entailed was repeated, there were elements of premeditation in the conduct, there was inadequate insight shown into her behaviour, and there was wilful disregard of the College and its processes.
In terms of mitigation, the Committee considered supportive statements and character references from professional colleagues and clients and accepted that there was no actual or potential harm to animals, that Ms Wicksteed had a hitherto unblemished career as demonstrated by the references, and that there had been a significant lapse of time since some of the elements of the charges, albeit she had not declared them.
The Committee also accepted that Ms Wicksteed had suffered from ill-health, although had not seen evidence that directly connected her health with the dishonest behaviour.
Taking into account all the factors, the Committee decided that removal from the Register was the appropriate and proportionate sanction, referencing Ms Wicksteed’s breaches in relation to: serious departure from and reckless disregard for the professional behaviours set out in the Code of Professional Conduct; causing serious harm to the public and breach of trust; persistent and concealed dishonesty; and persistent lack of insight into the seriousness of her conduct.
‘RVN Starting out’ takes around 10 hours to complete and is free to access at: https://academy.rcvs.org.uk/
VN Futures Project Manager, Jill Macdonald, said: “Our RVN Starting Out course has been created to support adapting to professional responsibility, optimising workplace learning opportunities and working effectively as part of a team.
"The course also assists newly-registered nurses with building confidence and considering their career development.
"We have included learning on key areas such as reflective practice, workplace culture, quality improvement, clinical decision-making and assertive communication to reflect the responsibilities that veterinary nurses now undertake."
“The course is delivered over six modules which can be completed individually and accessed at any time to fit around busy work schedules.”
The aim of the survey is to provide a better understanding of the views, experiences and challenges faced by disabled and chronically ill people within the veterinary profession and provide an insight into how the profession and educational institutions can be more inclusive.
You do not have to be disabled or chronically ill to complete the survey, which will take you around 20 minutes to complete.
Claire Hodgson, director and co-founder of BVCIS, said: “Working in the veterinary professions with a chronic illness or disability can be hugely challenging, but there is currently a knowledge gap in terms of understanding exactly where the problems lie.
“A 2019 RCVS survey of the professions found that around 6.7% of vets and 7.4% of RVNs have a disability or medical condition that limits work that they can do, but the true figures are likely to be much higher.
"No reliable data for veterinary students currently exists.
“The purpose of this survey is to close that knowledge gap and help us understand how we can better support disabled and chronically ill people in the workplace and education to create a more inclusive working culture.\
“Those living with disability and chronic illness are often hugely resourceful and fantastic problem solvers because of the day-to-day challenges they have had to learn to overcome.
"They have a great deal to contribute to the sector, and it is important that they feel valued and respected and have access to the tools they need to thrive.
“Diversity makes the workforce stronger, so we are calling on as many different people as possible from across the veterinary community to complete our survey so that, together, we can help create a more inclusive workplace for all.”
The survey will be circulated by email to all RCVS registered veterinary nurses and student veterinary nurses in the near future.
Details will be circulated to students via their educational institutions.
The RCVS says all survey responses will be completely confidential, and results will only be analysed and reported at a level that does not allow identification of individuals in any way.
Completed surveys will not be seen by anyone at the RCVS or BVCIS – the IES will send through a report with key research findings to both the RCVS and BVCIS after the survey has closed.
1,927 veterinary nurses voted, representing an 8.8% turnout.
Whilst marginally better than 2022's turnout of 8.4%, it's still less than half that seen in 2020.
Matthew Rendle scored 891 votes and Simon Williams 642.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for both elections, said: “Congratulations to all our successful candidates in this year’s elections and thank you to all those who stood for election this year.
"We look forward to welcoming our successful candidates to their elected places at this year’s AGM.
“While the turnout for the VN Council election improved slightly on last year, it was a shame to see the turnout for vets fall again.
"As part of our wider Council culture project, we are looking at how to increase engagement with our election processes across the board, from candidate nominations, to how we present information about the candidates, to how we encourage greater election turnout.
"We will be consulting with the group set up to look specifically at this issue in due course to see how we can improve turnout going forward.”
The full results for the RCVS Council election can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/vnvote23
Miss Morris faced three charges.
The first was that she left the post-operative German Shepherd unattended between 12.15pm and 2.30pm, made clinical records entries before leaving the practice indicating she’d made these entries at 2pm when she had not, and at 1.41pm sent a message to a veterinary surgeon colleague in which she purported to be providing contemporaneous updates about the dog’s condition and circumstances when she was not, in fact, with the animal.
The second charge alleged that her conduct from the first charge was potentially detrimental to the dog’s welfare, while the third charge alleged that the same conduct was dishonest and/or misleading.
Miss Morris admitted the majority of the charges, although she denied that she had made the clinical record dishonestly, saying that she had innocently omitted to correct a time entry she had earlier made in the records as a “prompt”.
After considering the evidence, the Committee found that she had been dishonest as she knowingly pre-entered the incorrect time in order to cover up for a period of absence from the practice.
The Committee then considered whether the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee found that there was a real risk of injury to the animal caused by leaving it unattended when it was recovering from a serious emergency procedure, dishonesty, recklessness regarding the dog’s welfare, pre-meditated misconduct, breach of client trust and, breach of the position of trust and responsibility placed in her.
In mitigation, the Committee considered that this was a single isolated incident, that it concerned one animal, and that, although there was a risk of harm in leaving a vulnerable animal unattended, her actions did not directly lead to any harm coming to the animal.
Overall, it found that Miss Morris’s conduct would undermine the public trust and confidence placed in the veterinary nursing profession as a whole as well as bring the profession into disrepute and so found that her actions amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In deciding the most appropriate sanction, the Committee took into account a number of further mitigating factors. These were Miss Morris’s youth and inexperience at the time of the misconduct, her previously unblemished career, her open and frank admissions to the majority of the charges, her efforts to avoid repeating such behaviours, her efforts to remediate past misconduct, the significant lapse of time between the incident and the disciplinary hearing, her demonstration of insight into her misconduct, together with and positive personal character references and testimonials.
Mrs Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “In deciding the proportionate sanction, the Committee considered the nature and extent of the dishonesty it had found proved.
"When considering where the dishonesty fell on a scale of dishonesty, it noted that the respondent had acted dishonestly within her practice as a veterinary nurse, on three clinical records, but that the dishonesty related to a single incident and one patient with the aim of extending her time away from the practice on Christmas Day.
"It therefore concluded that this could be described as middle ranging dishonesty (not the most or least serious type of dishonesty)."
Mrs Way added: “The Committee therefore concluded that, taking into account all of the above matters, a suspension of six months was the proportionate sanction required to meet the public interest in this case.
"It decided on a period of six months in order to send a signal to the veterinary nursing profession and the public about such conduct.
"In the Committee’s judgment, taking into account all of the above factors, a sanction of removal would be excessive and would not take sufficient account of the substantial mitigating factors.”
The full findings of the Disciplinary Committee can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Dr Power faced a number of charges relating to alleged clinical and communications failings surrounding surgery carried out on two separate dogs on two separate occasions.
The first concerned laryngeal tieback surgery carried out on Harvey, a Tibetan Terrier in March 2018, and the second concerned oesophageal surgery carried out on a boxer dog, Boss, in October 2018.
The College withdrew a number of the charges at the start of the hearing, and more later after hearing from witnesses.
Of the remainder, Dr Power admitted that she had not undertaken pre-operative radiographs before proceeding with the laryngeal surgery, had failed to perform the surgery appropriately (she dissected excessive tissue and had inappropriately placed sutures), and had undertaken the surgery when it was outside her area of competence.
In relation to the oesophageal surgery, Dr Power admitted failing to provide a referral report and/or clinical records to the veterinary practice he was referred from, despite requests from the practice.
The Committee found that the majority of the charges which had not been withdrawn or admitted by Dr Power, not proven.
However, the Committee found that in addition to the admitted charges, Dr Power had subjected the dog undergoing oesophageal surgery to an excessive 9.5 hours of anaesthesia.
The Committee then went on to consider whether the proven charges amounted to serious professional conduct.
Counsel for the College submitted that Dr Power’s conduct breached the part of the Code of Professional Conduct relating to veterinary surgeons keeping within their area of competence and referring responsibly; and providing veterinary care that is appropriate and adequate.
In terms of aggravating factors, the College submitted that there was both actual injury to the animal, as well as actions that posed a risk of injury, that Dr Power financially benefitted from the alleged misconduct as she was paid to perform a procedure outside her competence, and that she occupied a position of increased trust and responsibility as she advertised herself as a practitioner who accepted referrals and was competent to perform soft tissue surgery.
Dr Power’s counsel submitted that the charges that had been found proven amounted to clinical and administrative failings and that this was not a case of a veterinary surgeon deliberately or recklessly acting outside of their capabilities, but rather a case where a diligent and responsible veterinary surgeon had fallen short in discrete areas of her clinical practice and had reasonably believed at the time that she was competent to perform the surgery.
The Committee found that although the conduct within the proven charges fell short of what would be reasonably expected of a veterinary surgeon, it did not fall so far short that her conduct constituted serious professional misconduct.
Paul Morris, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee understood that it had a responsibility to consider the wider public interest, taking into account the view of a reasonable member of the public in possession of all the relevant facts and information.
“The Committee considered that such a member of the public would understand that veterinary surgery is a challenging profession. It was of the view that such a member of the public would not expect perfection, but understand that any professional practitioner may make mistakes in the course of their practice.
“It is the judgement of this Committee that the respondent’s conduct does not constitute disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
At the hearing, the Disciplinary Committee considered whether she had accepted the findings of the Committee at the original inquiry hearing, the seriousness of those findings, whether she had demonstrated insight into her past conduct, and the protection of the public and the public interest.
In her restoration application, Dr Burrows included continuing professional development (CPD) certificates for the courses she had completed since her removal from the Register, letters/informal witness statements from the veterinary surgeons and nurses she had worked who had expressed a willingness to employ her again, together with character references and reflection statements.
She also made a detailed opening statement in support of her application, in which she said that the period since her name was removed from the Register was extremely difficult and also that she now unconditionally accepted all the Committee’s original findings in May 2021, some of which she had previously denied and had failed to acknowledge.
Dr Burrows went on to state that she only had herself to blame for her actions and that she now understood and accepted that the original sanction of removal from the register had needed to be severe given the serious breach of trust to the public, to the veterinary profession and the insurance industry that was a direct consequence of her dishonest actions.
Since removal from the Register, Dr Burrows had taken on the role of receptionist in a Vets4Pets practice in Cardiff, which required her to deal directly with the public and their insurance requests and entitlements.
She stated that as a result of her involvement over the past 18 months in processing insurance claims, she acknowledges the “delicate” relationship between veterinary surgeons, clients and insurers.
Additionally, working as a receptionist, had allowed her to recognise the need for contemporaneous and clear clinical notes.
She also highlighted her CPD, which was relevant to insurance, as well as the fact she’d undertaken a professional ethics course to assist her rehabilitation, reflection, and insight.
In support of Dr Burrows’ restoration to the Register, the Committee took into account three witness accounts from people who work at the Vets4Pets branch where Dr Burrows works as a receptionist.
All witnesses gave positive reflections on Dr Burrows’ character and assured the Committee that they would provide the correct level of support to allow her to return to work safely and that they would have all the necessary safeguarding measures in place to ensure that the public’s and the profession’s interest is always at the forefront.
Judith Way, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was impressed by the fact that busy professionals chose to give up their time to provide witness statements and give evidence in support of Dr Burrows’ application.
"All witnesses were clearly supportive of Dr Burrows’ request for restoration to the Register.
“The Committee found Dr Burrows to show remorse and she does now accept the findings of dishonesty that were made against her in the original enquiry hearing and stated that her conduct was dishonest.
"In the Committee’s view, the evidence given by Dr Burrows on affirmation was very believable and she now accepts her dishonesty together with the gravity of her dishonesty.
“The Committee also formed the view that the steps she has taken to address her dishonesty serve to confirm that she is passionate about the prospect that she be allowed to return to practise.
"The Committee was impressed by Dr Burrows and the evidence given and is now satisfied that she will ensure the highest standards of probity and honesty in the future.
“Having taken all evidence into account, the Committee is satisfied that the future welfare of animals under Dr Burrows’ responsibility will be properly protected, and that her future dealings with insurers will be honest in all respects and that the interests of the public will be met.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
Under the protocol trial, the RCVS can launch private prosecutions against unqualified people practising veterinary surgery or using the title 'veterinary surgeon'.
The College says that where breaches of the Veterinary Surgeons Act cross over to other criminal offences, for example, fraud by false representation, they will be more properly dealt with by the relevant police force.
Local authority trading standards agencies will also deal with issues around, for example, misleading courses that purport to lead to registration with the RCVS but do not; concerns about dog grooming businesses and concerns about dog breeding establishments (other than where there is illegal practice of veterinary surgery by unqualified persons).
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Director of Legal Services, said: “This protocol recognises that there are constraints on the time, resourcing, and budgets of both the police and public prosecutors which means that the pursuit of these breaches of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, both of which carry minor criminal penalties, is not necessarily a priority.
“While we are always willing to work with the police and other agencies to pursue such breaches, the protocol details how we can act independently where appropriate and ensure we are fulfilling our stated ambition to safeguard the interests of the public and animals, as well as the reputation of the professions, by ensuring that only those registered with us can carry out acts of veterinary surgery.
“We would like to manage expectations around this trial period as we will only be launching private prosecutions where they meet the criminal evidential standards of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ and it is judged to be in the public interest to do so.
"We will also be relying on members of the professions and the public to report breaches and provide sufficient evidence to us, as we have no statutory investigatory powers.”
The trial period will last for one year and the College has set aside £50,000 to pursue private prosecutions.
The trial will be overseen by the Disciplinary Committee/ Preliminary Investigation Committee Liaison Committee while decisions on whether to pursue private prosecutions will lie with the Registrar/ Director of Legal Services.
Suspected breaches of the Veterinary Surgeons Act can be reported to the RCVS Professional Conduct Department on breachvsa@rcvs.org.uk.
The main change to the guidance was from:
A veterinary surgeon who has an animal under their care should have a 24/7 facility to physically examine the animal or visit the premises in the case of production animals, farmed aquatic animals and game.
to
A veterinary surgeon who has an animal under their care must be able, on a 24/7 basis, to physically examine the animal or visit the premises in the case of production animals, equines, farmed aquatic animals and game.
Where a veterinary surgeon is not able to provide this service, they must make arrangements for another veterinary service provider to do so on their behalf, details of which must be provided to the client in writing in advance of providing veterinary services.
The new guidance elaborates on the details which must be given to clients:
Veterinary surgeons should provide clients with full details of this arrangement, including relevant telephone numbers, location details, when the service is available and the nature of service provided.
The amended guidelines maintain that the prescription of antimicrobials and controlled drugs requires a physical examination in all but exceptional circumstances, but clarify that for antimicrobials, this applies to all except production animals, farmed aquatic animals and game.
The guidance for limited service providers, such as vaccination and neutering clinics, has been amended with the requirement that if they engage the services of another provider to provide 24-hour emergency cover, this arrangement must be confirmed in writing with the client before veterinary services are offered.
Council voted unanimously for a review of the guidance to be conducted 12 months from the implementation date, with the caveat that the Standards Committee would continue to monitor any impacts on an ongoing basis.
The full details of the amendments can be found in the papers for the March 2023 RCVS Council meeting at: www.rcvs.org.uk/who-we-are/rcvs-council/council-meetings/
Linda Belton MRCVS, Chair of the RCVS Standards Committee, said: “I would like to thank all the organisations and individuals within the professions who helped provide the crucial content and context for the case study scenarios, as well as feedback to make sure they were realistic and applicable in practice.
"Thank you also to all those who have fed into the further improvements that have been made to the guidance and I would like to reassure those with concerns that the guidance is robust, we have considered how it will be enforced and we will continue to review the guidance.”
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, added: “Ahead of it coming into force, we will also be publishing resources about the guidance, including the case studies that we are currently finalising, and some FAQs.
"We hope these will help to further explain the context behind the guidance changes, and help to counter any misunderstanding about the impact of the guidance and what it will actually mean for practising professionals on a day-to-day basis.”
For further information about the guidance and the consultation process that led to its development visit: www.rcvs.org.uk/undercare
There are 5 candidates standing this year and vet nurses can vote for up to two of them until 5pm on Friday 21st April 2023:
The candidates' profiles are available at www.rcvs.org.uk/vnvote23, where you can also read the candidates’ answers to two questions of their choice submitted by the profession.
The two candidates with the most votes will join VN Council for their three-year terms at the College’s AGM in July.
Any veterinary nurses who have not received their voting email should contact CES directly on support@cesvotes.com.
The DC heard that Mr Hutton had attended to a horse called Angel at a livery yard in Sheffield.
As he examined the horse, it kicked Mr Hutton in the leg, whereupon he kicked it back in the abdomen.
Mr Hutton admitted the facts of the allegation against him.
The Committee noted that there was a dispute between the parties about the exact manner in which the kick had been administered and whether the conduct amounted to disgraceful conduct.
Both the College and the defence obtained the opinion of experts, who were not in agreement as to whether the conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee heard evidence from Angel’s owner, Ms A, who was present when Mr Hutton kicked Angel and from Ms B, Mr Hutton’s life partner, who was also present.
In his witness statement, Mr Hutton said that his kick “was an instinctive reaction to what had happened and an instinctive reprimand for what I felt in the aftermath of the kick from her was malicious behaviour”.
Mr Hutton also stated that the reprimand was an appropriate response which a horse would understand, in order to modify its future behaviour.
In the hearing, Mr Hutton apologised for the incident with Angel. He said it had happened in the heat of the moment. He wished that he had apologised straight away.
In his expert evidence before the Committee, Mr T Gliddon MRCVS, called by the College, agreed that attitudes to physical reprimands had changed over time.
In his expert report, he stated that a reprimand administered by a veterinary surgeon that may have been considered acceptable by a significant body of the veterinary profession some decades ago would no longer be regarded as such now, in his opinion.
In re-examination, he stated that in his opinion, there was not a reasonable body of veterinary opinion which would consider kicking a horse as an acceptable form of negative reinforcement of behaviour.
In his expert evidence to the Committee, Dr H Tremaine FRCVS, called by Mr Hutton, stated that in the case of the minority of veterinary surgeons who used physical reprimands as a means of modifying behaviour, he was not aware that such reprimands would include the use of a kick.
The Committee concluded from the evidence that, following the kick from Angel, Mr Hutton moved away from the horse, so that he was no longer in immediate danger and that his kick in response had come after a gap in time, albeit brief.
Ms Greaney, Counsel for the College, provided written submissions on serious professional misconduct, submitting that principles 1.1 (Veterinary surgeons must make animal health and welfare their first consideration when attending to animals) and 6.5 (Veterinary surgeons must not engage in any activity or behaviour that would be likely to bring the profession into disrepute or undermine public confidence in the profession) of the Code of Professional Conduct had been breached.
It was submitted that, on the basis that there had been a deliberate decision by Mr Hutton to kick Angel in the abdomen, he had time to consider his actions.
The College submitted that deliberately kicking Angel, either as punishment or by way of teaching or training a horse, fell far below the standard expected of veterinary surgeons.
The Committee found Mr Hutton’s state of mind when kicking Angel was not an issue and that Mr Hutton had intentionally kicked the horse.
In reaching its decision in relation to whether Mr Hutton’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct the Committee took into account that:
Mrs Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee determined that taking all circumstances and its findings into account, this conduct was a single, but serious failure on the part of Mr Hutton and found the facts proved amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
“On deciding what, if any, sanction ought to be imposed, the Committee considered the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case, based on findings at the earlier stages of the hearing.
"The Committee found that there had been a risk of physical and/or mental injury to Angel from Mr Hutton’s conduct but accepted that there were a number of mitigating factors.
“It had been found that the incident had occurred over a very brief period and that Mr Hutton had not taken proper time to consider his response to Angel’s unexpected kick.
"This was found to be a single isolated incident and the character evidence indicated that otherwise, Mr Hutton was a competent and well-regarded veterinary surgeon.
"Mr Hutton admitted the kick early on in the proceedings and had issued an early apology, albeit seeking initially to raise some justification for his actions.
“The Committee was persuaded, in light of Mr Hutton’s admissions, heartfelt apologies, developing insight and the testimonial evidence, that he is very unlikely to repeat his past misconduct.
"However, despite the low risk of repetition, the Committee considered that the nature of the kick, delivered without the consent of the owner, could undermine public confidence in the profession.
"Thus, the Committee considered that it was proportionate to issue a reprimand together with a warning as to Mr Hutton’s future conduct.
"It has determined that this would be proportionate and sufficient to provide adequate protection for animals and maintain public confidence in the profession.”
The full details of the hearing and the Committee’s decision can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.
The increase, which was approved by the Privy Council on Thursday 2 March, will mean that the standard annual renewal fee for veterinary nurses (which must be paid on or before 1 November 2023) will increase by £3 to £77.
The full list of RCVS fees can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/how-we-work/fees
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, said: “We are proud that all throughout the pandemic period, when we know that many were struggling, we managed to keep our fees at the same level in the 2020/21, 2021/22, and 2022/23 fee years.
“The increase that we proposed to the Privy Council is very modest, particularly in comparison to the overall levels of inflation that the British economy has experienced over the past year, which has had an impact on our costs.
“While we appreciate that any rise in fee levels will not be welcomed by everyone, we can assure all members of the professions that we are continuing to use our income prudently and with oversight from our Audit & Risk and Finance & Resources Committees.”
As the increase has been confirmed by the Privy Council, annual renewal fee notifications will be sent to all veterinary surgeons in early March.
The definition agreed by VN Council is as follows:
Veterinary nursing aims to ease the suffering and pain of animals, and to improve their health and welfare.
This includes providing any medical treatment or any minor surgery (not involving entry into a body cavity) to animals under the direction of a veterinary surgeon who has that animal under their care.
Veterinary nursing can be either proactive or reactive, and autonomous or collaborative. It is carried out in a wide variety of settings, for animals at all life stages, and considers the background and needs of the animal’s owner or keeper.
Matthew Rendle RVN, the Chair of VN Council, said: “Although it is just a few short lines, this definition of veterinary nursing has been in the pipeline for some time.
"While we as veterinary nurses have always been able to define ourselves by the type of tasks we carry out, or our relation to veterinary surgeons in terms of delegation, there hasn’t necessarily been a clear statement articulating the art and science of veterinary nursing.
“With the RCVS looking to expand its regulatory remit to include other veterinary paraprofessionals over the long term, we thought it was particularly important that we set out the stall for veterinary nursing and we hope that this clear statement will, in particular, aid the public in understanding the role of a veterinary nurse.
“It should be noted that this definition is VN Council’s own considered interpretation of the art and science of veterinary nursing.
"Other interpretations from other organisations, provided they conform with both Schedule 3 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act and the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct, could sit comfortably alongside ours, and we hope there continues to be healthy discussion about the contribution of the profession to the veterinary team, as our role evolves.”
What do you think of the definition and do you think it will help change the public and the profession's perceptions. Have your say here: https://www.vetnurse.co.uk/001/f/nonclinical-discussions/32399/what-do-you-think-of-the-new-rcvs-vn-council-definition-of-the-role-of-vet-nurses
There are 5 candidates standing for two available places on RCVS VN Council this year. They are:
The biographies and election statements for each candidate are available at https://www.rcvs.org.uk/who-we-are/vn-council/vn-council-elections/
Ahead of the start of the election in mid-March, the RCVS is asking veterinary nurses to email questions for candidates to: vnvote23@rcvs.org.uk in order to better understand them and their views.
You have until Friday 24 February 2023 to submit your question.
The voting period for RCVS VN Council opens on Monday 13th March and closes at 5pm on Friday 21 April 2023.
The new guidance will remove the absolute requirement for veterinary surgeons to perform a physical examination before prescribing POM medicines, making it instead a matter for professional judgement.
However, the proposed new guidance also imposes a requirement for veterinary surgeons who do NOT physically examine the animal prior to prescribing to provide a 24/7 follow-up service which includes a physical examination.
Furthermore, the new guidance will state that: "Where the veterinary surgeon is not able to provide this service [the physical exam] themselves, they should arrange for another veterinary service provider to do so. This arrangement should be made before veterinary services are offered and confirmed in writing as part of the conditions of service agreed by the client."
This requirement to provide a physical 24/7 follow-up would appear to safeguard animal welfare and protect against the risk of online-only businesses (in the UK or abroad) with lower overheads cherry-picking the job of prescribing medicines.
It should also protect against veterinary surgeons feeling pressured to prescribe inappropriately, because the new, stricter requirements will make it easier for them to decline to do so.
However, the BVA doesn't agree with the new proposals. It feels that remote prescribing should be delivered under the auspices of a Veterinary Client-Patient-Relationship (VCPR), which, according to the American Veterinary Medical Association, requires a physical examination.
BVA President Malcolm Morley, said: “The changes to ‘under care’ guidance are a watershed moment, so it’s positive to see that they have evolved in response to feedback from the profession. New technology presents exciting opportunities to enhance existing veterinary services and has benefits for practices as well as clients and their animals.
"However, BVA has been very clear that we believe remote prescribing can only be safely delivered where a vet-client-patient relationship has been established.
"This is an internationally recognised concept, and we are disappointed that the RCVS has decided not to embrace it.
“Having voted to implement these changes, it is incumbent upon the RCVS and the profession to scrutinise how they play out.
"At BVA we plan to develop advice and resources to support our members and help them comply with the new guidance and realise any benefits of remote veterinary service provision.’
“It is now vital that a timeframe for a review is quickly put in place, so any negative impacts on animal welfare or the sustainability of veterinary services can be dealt with swiftly.”
Council voted by a majority of 20 to 3 in favour of the changes, which it then decided should come into force between 1st June and 23rd December 2023, subject to a review at the next meeting.
Discuss the propose changes here