All Headlines >>
Mr Aspey and Mrs Howarth, both lecturers in veterinary nursing at Harper Adams University, the latter also a member of the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council, appeared before the Committee last month.
Mr Aspey faced the following charges:
The charges against Mrs Howarth were that, on the same day, she:
Mr Aspey admitted all the charges.
Mrs Howarth admitted the circumstances of the charges against her but denied the actions had occurred without the direction of and/or supervision by a registered veterinary surgeon.
Under the Veterinary Surgeons Act, Schedule 3 tasks can only be delegated by a veterinary surgeon if they are satisfied to the RVN’s competence and they are on hand to assist; veterinary nurses cannot independently undertake medical treatments or minor surgery without the direction and/or supervision of a veterinary surgeon.
In her evidence Mrs Howarth said she had reasonably believed that Mr Aspey had got permission both for Nessa’s procedure and for her involvement in her care.
However, the Committee found that although Mrs Howarth believed that Mr Aspey had got permission, none of the vets on duty at the practice had Nessa under their care, and Mrs Howarth’s belief was based on relying on actions she believed Mr Aspey had taken.
The Committee therefore found, in her case, the charges proved.
The Committee then considered whether the charges against each of them amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In Mr Aspey’s case, the Committee took into account that he performed the procedures in the knowledge that he hadn't obtained the necessary permissions, and that, as an experienced RVN, he'd been aware of the restrictions on what he could do.
In particular it noted that he had breached the Veterinary Medicines Regulations by prescribing and dispensing a controlled drug without direction from a veterinary surgeon.
The Committee therefore found Mr Aspey guilty of serious professional misconduct.
For Mrs Howarth, the Committee found that though her actions fell below the standard required of a veterinary nurse, it did not fall far below the standard, therefore she was cleared of serious professional misconduct.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee had found that Mrs Howarth had relied on the necessary arrangements having been made by Mr Aspey.
"It found that Mrs Howarth’s error had been in her readiness to rely on Mr Aspey and not to have checked for herself that her dog had been properly booked into the practice and that Nessa was under the care of a veterinary surgeon.”
He added: “The Committee is clear that, as Mrs Howarth herself admitted, she should have ensured that they obtained suitable permission to have the procedure carried out.
"However, for all the reasons given above, the Committee finds that Mrs Howarth is not guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
The Committee then went on to consider the most appropriate and proportionate sanction for Mr Aspey.
In mitigation, it considered that terms of mitigation, the Committee took into account that no actual harm, or risk of harm to an animal was likely to arise from the incident and there was very little chance of repetition.
Mr Aspey had not acted for any financial gain for himself, and Mrs Howarth had been unaware of the discounted fee.
The misconduct also related to a single incident at the practice, carried out in the open and without concealment and that Mr Aspey had a long and unblemished career, with no previous adverse findings against him.
The Committee also took into account the fact that he had made open and frank admissions to both the practice concerned and the RCVS, that he had self-referred the matter to the College’s Professional Conduct Department, and had made apologies to all those involved.
The Committee ultimately decided that the most appropriate sanction for Mr Aspey was a reprimand.
Paul Morris, summing up the reason for the decision, said: “The Committee recognises that in this case there were numerous factors which led to the ultimate compromise of the integrity of professional standards.
"Specifically, a failure to follow the necessary elements of the guide of professional conduct for both registered veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons led to the inappropriate processes of consent and record keeping, lack of evidence of direction by a veterinary surgeon, and the subsequent use and dispensing of a prescription-only veterinary medicine.
“Whilst all of these factors are serious in isolation or taken as a whole, the mitigatory factors and the complete insight shown by the respondent, including steps taken to prevent such behaviour recurring, were influential in the Committee’s reasoning.
"However, such practice as evidenced in the findings of fact remains out-with the current Code of Professional Conduct and must be avoided by the wider profession.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vet nurses.