Lintbells Veterinary has announced the launch of Yurelieve, a feline urinary health supplement containing multiple glycosaminoglycans, L-tryptophan and EFAs.

Andrew Connolly, Product Manager at Lintbells Veterinary said: "Yurelieve supports a condition which is not only frustrating to treat, but can also be distressing for the cat and their owners. The launch of Yurelieve will enable veterinary surgeons to offer their clients the most comprehensive feline urinary health support available."

Yurelieve contains Green Lipped Mussel, which Lintbells says provides a unique combination of Omega 3 fatty acids (EPA, DHA and ETA) to aid the cat’s own natural anti-inflammatory process. In addition, the product contains multiple GAGs and N-acetyl D-glucosamine to support the bladder lining, and L-tryptophan which the company says is proven to decrease stress related behaviours in cats.

To mark the launch of the new supplement, Lintbells is running a Facebook competition in which vets and nurses are invited to share photos of their cats, with a statement that captures their unique personality.

Andrew continued: “When cats are affected by a urinary condition, it takes their independence and personality away from them, so we wanted to celebrate the importance of allowing cats to be their natural charismatic selves with a photo competition starring everyone’s feline friends.”

To enter the competition, post a photo of a beloved cat with a caption that captures their unique personality, starting with ‘I believe…’ to the Lintbells Vet Facebook page (www.facebook.com/lintbellsvet). The best will win a Pampurrrr Spa Day for 2.

Yurelieve is available from your veterinary wholesaler now, in packs of 30 capsules. 

For more information on Yurelieve speak to your Lintbells Business Development Executive or call 01462 790886.

Royal Canin has launched a range of new renal diets to help support cats and dogs with Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD).

According to the company, CKD patients are twice as likely to show signs of anorexia, food intolerance and loss of appetite than non-CKD pets, so the focus with the new diets has been on different aromatic profiles, textures and tastes to provide choice and encourage feeding without compromising the nutritional management of the pets with CKD.

Royal Canin says each of the diets in the new Renal range has been developed with a unique aromatic profile, so that cats and dogs can be attracted to their food bowl even after an episode of food aversion.

The new range also provides two different textures of dry diet for both cats and dogs. In addition to the classic kibbles found in Renal and Renal Special, the new Renal Select diet for cats has a pillow kibble with a thin, crunchy shell and a soft centre for cats who used to love crunching but are beginning to struggle with harder kibbles. The new kibbles for dogs are designed to be easy to rehydrate, providing the taste of a dry diet in a softer, easier to chew format. A new Renal Wet range is also available with a 'loaf' or 'chunks-in-gravy' texture and these can be combined with any dry diet to allow even greater variety of textures.

With CKD causing frequent fluctuations in an animal's sense of taste, Royal Canin has made the feline range available in smaller 500g bags, making it easier for owners to swap between the differing options as their pet's tastes alter.

Royal Canin's Veterinary Marketing Manager, Marianne Lomberg, said: "The efficiency of a renal diet depends upon it being fed on a continuing basis and so our new range provides a complete range of aromatic profiles and textures to keep your CKD patients enjoying every meal without compromising on their nutritional management. Royal Canin has a proven track record of developing innovative diets to help pets, and the new Renal Diets are an exciting new move for us."

Royal Canin is also offering a 'patient compliance guarantee' where vets and their clients can claim their money back if a pet does not like any of the many diet combinations offered by the range. 

The RCVS has announced that it is carrying out an audit of continuing professional development (CPD) for vets in order to monitor compliance and gauge what type of activities they are engaging in.

Under the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct, introduced in 2012, veterinary surgeons are expected to undertake 105 hours of CPD over a rolling three-year period in order to demonstrate that they are maintaining and advancing their knowledge and skills.

Nearly 5,000 vets - made up of three cohorts - have been asked to share their CPD records. The first cohort comprises 4,425 UK-practising vets who registered before 1 April 2012 but who did not confirm their CPD compliance upon renewing their registration this year. The second cohort comprises a random sample of 400 vets who did confirm their compliance upon renewing their registration this year. The third cohort comprises 84 vets who graduated before 2012 but have not yet completed their post-graduation Professional Development Phase.

Christine Warman, RCVS Head of Education, said: "Since it is coming up to three years since we introduced the Code we thought that now is a good time to take stock of the proportion of veterinary surgeons that are fulfilling the requirement and how they are doing so.

"It is also a good time to remind members of the profession of the importance of CPD and that it is not just a tick-box exercise but vital for everyday practice. Engaging in CPD is a personal obligation for all veterinary surgeons and demonstrates to both the profession and public that they are continually advancing their capability and competence.

"This year we will be providing some guidance on what constitutes CPD and how to undertake it to those who are non-compliant. However, from 2015, we may also refer those who repeatedly fail to comply, or respond to requests to submit their records, to our Professional Conduct Department for further investigation."

Vets who have been selected to take part in the audit will have received letters in early November and will have until Monday 1 December to respond. They can do so by either allowing the RCVS to view their online Professional Development Record (PDR) profile or by submitting their paper CPD record by post or by sending the College a scanned copy by email.

For further advice and to submit a CPD record by email, contact cpd@rcvs.org.uk. Those who have not yet registered for the PDR can do so by visiting www.rcvs-pdr.org.uk

CarefreeCredit, the vet-run company we reported on back in October, has announced that it is working with its 600th practice in offering its interest-free or low-interest credit to clients that find themselves unable to pay for unforeseen veterinary treatment.

Stewart Halperin MRCVS, Managing Director of CarefreeCredit said: “2014 has been an incredibly busy but successful year for us. We’ve increased the take up of our service by over 500%, we have proudly cemented our partnerships within the corporate and buying groups and most importantly, we have become established enough to make a substantial difference to the pets and pet owners who rely on the help our service provides.”

Stewart added: “We know 2015 is going to be an even bigger year for us, with even more practices joining our system and the introduction of dependable and innovative business support services that will continue to save our practices time and money and help them increase sales and reduce debtors. With this in mind, we are introducing a very small monthly charge to cover our increased costs in software, training and office support services.”

From the New Year, practices that join Carefree Credit will be charged a flat rate of £10 per month for the duration of their membership. The £10 monthly fee covers support for FCA applications, unlimited training in-practice or online, use of the CarefreeCredit unique platform, CarefreeCredit office support, and point of sale materials. Practices that sign up before January 1st, will continue their membership without charge until at least January 2016.

For further information, visit: carefreecredit.co.uk or ring 0203 697 8439.

The Veterinary Osteoarthritis Congress, which will take place at Holywell Park Conference Centre, Loughborough, on 22nd and 23rd May, is open for registrations.

Congress offers two days of lectures and workshops and up to 14 hours CPD delivered by experts on the most cutting-edge OA management, treatment, techniques and technology.

There is also a large trade exhibition showcasing many of the latest products and services, not to mention a happy hour and gala dinner.

The organisers say veterinary surgeons and nurses, physiotherapists, hydrotherapists, and anyone working to prevent, treat and manage osteoarthritis will find the congress hugely rewarding.

This year there’s a focus on comparative disciplines, including human and equine practice.

Tickets cost from £190 to £370, plus VAT.

www.vet-oa.com/voacon

The Waltham Equine Studies Group has announced the results of two pieces of research designed to improve understanding of the best nutritional support for older horses, whether they are healthy or diagnosed with Pituitary Pars Intermedia Dysfunction (PPID or Cushing's).

The first study: A comparison of nutrient digestibility between adult and aged horses, conducted by the Department of Large Animal clinical Sciences and Animal Science, Michigan State University and The Waltham Equine Studies Group, confirmed (in contrast to earlier work) that there was no difference in digestibility between healthy adult and aged horses when fed a variety of common equine diets.¹ 

In the second study: Characterisation of the faecal bacterial community in adult and elderly horses fed a high fibre high oil or high starch diet, the Institute of Biological Environmental and Rural Sciences, Aberystwyth University, The Waltham Equine Studies Group and Michigan State University used the same horses as the previous study but this time looked at their gut microflora. The results showed that although no significant differences in individual species of bacteria were found, ageing was, however, associated with a reduction in bacterial diversity. This, say the authors, may in part explain why older animals can be at increased risk of intestinal disturbances.²

An abstract that summarised part of the Waltham Equine Studies Group's work on the effect of additional supplementation on aged horses with and without PPID was presented at the 2^nd Dorothy Havermeyer Geriatric Workshop in the USA last November.³ This work, carried out in conjunction with Dr Amanda Adams at the University of Kentucky showed that age is key in influencing inflammation and metabolism rather than whether the horse is PPID positive or not.

Professor Pat Harris, head of the Waltham Equine Studies Group, said: "For the parameters we monitored, the research showed that it is being old that is the issue, rather than having PPID." 

Clare Barfoot RNutr and the research and development manager at Spillers said: “This should give us a better understanding of the effects of diet and age on metabolism in order to determine optimal nutrition for the senior horse. Preliminary work suggests that this new research may change the way we think of feeding the older horse. Waltham’s work continues to ensure that Spillers feeds remain at the forefront of equine nutrition, for the better health of horses everywhere.”

References

1. Elzinga, S., Nielsen, B.D., Schott II, H.C., Rapson, J., Robison, C.I., McCutcheon, J.,Harris, P.A., Geor, R (2014) Comparison of Nutrient Digestibility Between Adult and Aged Horses Journal of Equine Veterinary Science, 34 (10), pp. 1164-1169.
2. Dougal K, de la Fuente G, HARRIS P, Girdwood SE, Pinloche E, et al. (2014) Characterisation of the Faecal Bacterial Community in Adult and Elderly Horses Fed a High Fibre, High Oil or High Starch Diet Using 454 Pyrosequencing. PLoS ONE 9(2): e87424. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0087424
3. Betancourt A, Harris  PA, Moffett  AD, McMurry  KE, Reedy  SE, Horohov DW, & Adam  AA (2014) Comparison of inflammation, nutritional status, muscle mass, pituitary function, and age in geriatric horses.

Lowestoft vet Frank Eric Ainsworth MRCVS has received a severe reprimand and warning as to future conduct from the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after being found guilty of serious professional misconduct.

The charge against Mr Ainsworth was that in July 2013, he failed to provide adequate care to Ash, a dog presented to him whilst he was working as a locum at Pinebank Veterinary Surgery in Kent.

Specifically, the charge was that having diagnosed Ash with heatstroke, Mr Ainsworth failed to admit the dog to the practice for urgent treatment, failed to transfer the dog to another practice, failed to suggest euthanasia, and failed to offer the owner, Mr McMahon, adequate treatment advice.

On presentation to Mr Ainsworth at Pinebank between 7am and 8am, Ash was collapsed and his symptoms included diarrhoea, vomiting, lethargy and a high temperature.

On being told that Ash had heatstroke and was unlikely to survive, Mr McMahon asked Mr Ainsworth whether anything could be done to save him, but was told the practice did not have the necessary treatment facilities. Mr McMahon was advised to take Ash home and use cold running water, ice packs and fans to reduce his temperature.

After Mr McMahon took Ash home and showered him in cold water, his wife telephoned Pinebank to complain. The practice receptionist, Ms Baldock, confirmed to her that there was nothing they could do.

Mrs McMahon asked if her husband could take Ash to Pinebank's out-of-hours service provider, but was told this was not an option.

Eventually, Mr McMahon took Ash to an alternative practice, Sandhole Vets, where the dog was treated by the practice owner, Mr Johnson. Mr McMahon was told that Ash was unlikely to survive and that, if there was no improvement, he should consider euthanasia. Around 45 minutes after the treatment was started, Ash suffered seizures and died shortly thereafter.

Mr Ainsworth told the Committee that he did not think Pinebank had adequate facilities to treat a dog of Ash's size for heatstroke and was unaware that it had a hosepipe and watering can. In addition, he did not believe it would be practical and effective to reduce Ash's temperature with wet towels and considered that the main priority of reducing the temperature would be best done at home.

Mr Ainsworth told the Committee that he intended to make enquiries about referring Ash to another practice once his temperature had been reduced at home. He was about to search the internet for alternative practices when he overheard his colleague's phone conversation with Mrs McMahon and assumed that Ash had been taken to another practice.

Mr Ainsworth accepted that he did not discuss euthanasia with Mr McMahon, which he said he would have done at a later stage if Ash's condition did not improve. He also accepted that he made no further enquiries of Ms Baldock and did not telephone Mr McMahon to check if Ash had gone to another practice.

Before reaching its decision the Committee considered, in detail, the testimony of a number of witnesses and experts for both the College and Mr Ainsworth. It rejected Mr Ainsworth's evidence that his treatment plan was to follow up his investigations into Ash's case or contact Mr McMahon by telephone. It concluded that, if such a plan had been in place, he would have informed Mr McMahon of his intentions.

The Committee also rejected Mr Ainsworth's evidence that he had overheard the conversation between Ms Baldock and Mrs McMahon. It said it was not credible that, if he had heard the call, that he would not have made further enquiries.

The Committee found the charges proven. For example, it concluded that Mr Ainsworth should have made further enquiries about the treatment facilities available at the practice for cooling Ash and, if he felt that they were inadequate, should have advised Mr McMahon to take the dog to another practice. It also felt it was inappropriate for Mr Ainsworth to have sent Ash home to the care of his owners while in a critical condition without first seeking the option of referral.

Furthermore, the Committee felt that Mr Ainsworth should have given Mr McMahon the full range of treatment options available, including oxygen and fluids as Ash was in a collapsed state, before he left the practice, as well as discussing euthanasia.

However, the Committee did accept, on the basis of Mr Ainsworth's clinical records, that he had given advice to Mr McMahon on how Ash could be cooled down at home, although it felt the advice could have been more detailed.

In deciding its sanction for Mr Ainsworth the Committee accepted that his actions were not motivated by indifference to animal welfare but that, on this occasion, there was a serious lapse of judgment.

The Committee also considered that this was a single incident on Mr Ainsworth's first day at the practice and that he had been confronted with an emergency situation before the practice had opened. It accepted that Mr Ainsworth had an unblemished career over the past 38 years and that he had produced character references from other veterinary surgeons attesting his integrity, skill and conscientiousness.

Judith Webb, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee has concluded that the sanction proportionate to Mr Ainsworth's conduct is one of severe reprimand and warning as to his future conduct."

She added: "The Committee considers that veterinary surgeons are required to be proactive in their duty of care and refer cases when they do not have the ability to deal with cases appropriately."

The Committee also recommended that Mr Ainsworth should undertake, in the next 12 months, continuing professional development with an emphasis on emergency and critical care and client communication.

The Committee's full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).

New regulations which limit the type of animals that can be kept as pets came into force in Holland earlier this week.

Mammalian animals not included on a new 'Positive List' cannot be legally kept in Holland or may only be kept with a special permit. People who already own animals that are not on the Positive List may keep them till they die, but may not breed or trade their animals. In due course, the list will be expanded to include reptiles and birds.

The Dutch Positive List was compiled using a method developed by the University of Wageningen, in which an animal's behavioural needs are one of the prime considerations. The list favours domesticated species such as: dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, brown rats, house mice, horses, donkeys, pigs, cattle and sheep.

The Positive List excludes a number of exotic species that are currently sold in the UK, including: meerkats, sugar gliders, sloths, skunks, kinkajous, fennec foxes and several primate species, which can be purchased without the need for a licence.

The Animal Protection Agency (APA), a not-for-profit organisation which campaigns against the trade in wild animals as pets, has welcomed the new legislation and says it hopes that the UK (DEFRA and the devolved administrations) will adopt the same approach.

Elaine Toland, Director of the Animal Protection Agency said: "One only has to compare the natural life of a meerkat, which has evolved to live in large social groups, hunt for a variety of foods and reside in intricate underground burrows to see that these mammals, and many other exotic species, do not belong in the pet trade. Simples! The Dutch positive list shines more light at the end of the tunnel for anyone dealing with the fallout of the exotic pet trade, which has long been out of control."

A positive list for mammals has been in force in Belgium since 2001, where according to the APA, it has been highly effective in reducing illegal trade and the number of animals that wind up in rescue shelters.

Other European countries are apparently now considering positive lists.

Picture shows: A Sugar Glider. © Grinerswife/Dreamstime.com

Vet Futures, the joint initiative by the RCVS and BVA to stimulate debate about the future of the profession, has opened a new discussion about whether VAT on vet fees for pets should be dropped.

The discussion has been opened by this month's Vet Futures guest blogger, Stuart Winter, the Sunday Express small animal columnist and a campaigner to end VAT on pet fees.

Stuart argues that owning a pet is not a luxury to be taxed when they need medical intervention, because owning a companion improves the health and wellbeing of its owner.

He writes that removing VAT on veterinary fees for domestic animals, or at least reducing it to five pence in the pound, would improve the nation's animal welfare. It would allow low-income families to seek medical attention earlier, he argues, while allowing more owners to afford and take out pet insurance.

He says that shifting Government thinking on the subject might be a Herculean task, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't campaign for its removal. "No Chancellor delights in losing revenue. Treating, curing and caring for sick and injured animals is nothing more than a service and services are ripe to be harvested.

"It is time for a counter argument. Pet ownership is not a luxury. It is more than a privilege. Is it not a human right? Welcoming animals into our lives makes our lives more fulfilled and more civilised."

To tie in with the discussion, Vet Futures is inviting vets to take part in a poll which asks: "Would you agree that VAT should no longer be levelled on vet fees?"

The College is encouraging members of the veterinary team and the public to take part in the poll so that it can generate debate on the issue of VAT and better understand the full consequences if it was removed.

January's poll asked members of the profession if they could recognise the signs of mental ill-health in a colleague. Reassuringly, just over half (58%) of the 65 respondents said they would be able to recognise the signs, although that leaves 40% who would not feel comfortable in their ability to do so.

To read Stuart Winter's blog, contribute to the discussion and vote in the poll, visit www.vetfutures.org.uk

MSD Animal Health's equine division has launched a new series of materials to support its Keeping Britain's Horses Healthy Campaign.

For veterinary practices, there's a Vet Reception Pack designed to help receptionists educate owners why they should vaccinate and the benefits of preventive healthcare.

For yards, there are posters giving guidance and advice on prevention of Infectious Respiratory Disease and the steps which should be taken to control a potential outbreak. They can be tailor made for an individual yard.  

Peter Young, MSD Animal Health Equine Business Manager said: "Our first wave of support materials focused very much on equine vets and owners - helping raise awareness of the importance of preventive healthcare and driving owners towards vets for advice. This phase of materials helps support yard owners and receptionists, aiming to fill some of those communications gaps where advice and guidelines on individual horse's vaccination requirements and yard protocols can play a vital role in preventing the spread of disease and controlling outbreaks."  

Keeping Britain's Horses Healthy is a national campaign to educate horse owners on endemic infectious disease, vaccination, herd immunity and the importance of preventative healthcare. It includes a range of educational materials for veterinary surgeries and direct to owners. The campaign is supported by a national PR, advertising and social media programme, together with a dedicated website www.healthyhorses.co.uk.  The website, aimed at driving owners back to their veterinary practices, includes a vet finder, exclusively for equine practices, and healthcare information.  

For full details of the launch programme, talk to your account manager, call 01908 685685 or visit www.healthyhorses.co.uk. 

Matthew John Makepeace has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after a conviction for assaulting his ex-partner.

Mr Makepeace faced five charges.

The first charge was that in 2022 Mr Makepeace was convicted at Scarborough Magistrates Court of assaulting by beating his ex-partner.

He was sentenced to a community order and a curfew order and was ordered to pay a £95 surcharge and £85 in costs.

It was alleged that the conviction rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.

The second was that in August 2022, Mr Makepeace submitted a character reference which purported to have been written by his ex-partner saying that they "still live happily together", when this was untrue. It was also alleged that the reference purported to have been signed by Mr Makepeace's ex-partner when he knew that was not the case.

The third charge alleged that Mr Makepeace had sent WhatsApp messages to his ex-partner which were offensive, insulting, abusive, threatening and/or intimidating.

The fourth charge  was that was a repetition of the second. 

The fifth and final charge was that in relation to charges 2 and 4, that Mr Makepeace’s conduct was misleading and/or dishonest; and that it is alleged that in relation to charges 2,3,4 and/or 5, whether individually or in any combination, that Mr Makepeace was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

The first charge was proven by virtue of a certified copy of the memorandum of an entry in the Magistrates’ Court register.

Mr Makepeace also admitted the facts of all the other charges, meaning they were found proven by admission.

In terms of the conviction, the Committee assessed the incident to be serious – the assault was prolonged, involved strangulation and biting which led to physical injuries, and involved a pursuit.

This was found by the Committee to bring the reputation of the profession into disrepute.

The Committee therefore found that the conviction rendered Mr Makepeace unfit to practise.

With regard to the remaining charges, the Committee found Mr Makepeace’s behaviour serious, saying that it showed a blatant and wilful disregard of the role of the RCVS and the systems that regulate the veterinary profession, and that his actions were intended to dishonestly subvert that process.

The Committee considered that his actions fell sufficiently below the standards expected in terms of honesty and integrity, as well as in terms of the behaviour expected of a registered professional.

All this constituted disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

When making a decision on the appropriate sanction, the Committee took into account evidence from Mr Makepeace, two character witnesses, and a document bundle including evidence of training, continuing professional development (CPD) and other testimonials.

Aggravating factors taken into account were:

• that Mr Makepeace’s actions in relation to the assault were premeditated, in that he pursued his ex-partner;
• that there was an increased position of trust between partners and co-habitants, and that his ex-partner was entitled to trust him;
• that his conduct in relation to the assault was exacerbated by alcohol consumption;
• that, in relation to the WhatsApp messages there was a course of coercive, intimidating, and abusive behaviour over a significant period, despite Mr Makepeace’s abstention from alcohol at that time and the prior completion of an anger management course and therapy;
• that there was a blatant and wilful disregard of the role of the RCVS and the systems that regulate the profession in that his actions in charges 2, 4, and 5 were intended to subvert that process and were dishonest towards the RCVS;
• that his dishonesty towards his regulator was for personal gain in order to present himself in a more favourable light before his regulator;
• and that he demonstrated inadequate insight into his actions.

Mitigating factors taken into account were that Mr Makepeace made full admissions at the start of the hearing; he expressed remorse; was shown to be of previous good character; that there had been a significant lapse of time since his conviction; he had made subsequent efforts to avoid repetition of the behaviour which led to the conviction; the financial impact upon Mr Makepeace if he was prevented from being able to practise; and the testimonials.

Neil Slater, Chair of the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee’s view was that the demands of the public interest in this case were high, and in light of all of the circumstances, removal from the register was the only means of upholding the wider public interest, which includes the need to uphold proper standards of conduct and performance, and to maintain confidence in the profession and its regulation.

“The Committee therefore decided to direct that the respondent should be removed from the Register.

"In coming to this decision, the Committee carefully applied the principle of proportionality and took into account the impact of such a sanction on the respondent’s ability to practise his profession, as well as the financial impact upon him, taking into account his evidence in this regard.

“However, the Committee determined that the need to uphold the wider public interest outweighed the respondent’s interests in this respect.

"In light of the gravity of the conduct, and all of the factors taken into account, any lesser sanction would lack deterrent effect and would undermine public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.

"Removal was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction.”

https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings 

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 has announced that nominations for this year’s VN Golden Jubilee Award, which recognises exceptional contribution to veterinary nursing, are now being accepted.

The award was launched in 2011 to celebrate the 50^th anniversary of the first RCVS veterinary nursing training course and recognises those who have made an outstanding contribution to the profession, animal welfare and/or patient care. Nominees can be registered veterinary nurses, veterinary surgeons or lay people.

Nomination forms need to be submitted by 5pm on Friday 24 April. The principal nominator must be a registered veterinary nurse or veterinary surgeon, although the two supporting proposers can be lay people.

Kathy Kissick, Chair of VN Council, said: “One of the main priorities of VN Council in the coming years is to raise levels of awareness of registered veterinary nurses, and awards which recognise the importance of VNs in the context of the veterinary team and animal welfare are crucial to enhancing the profession’s profile.

“Therefore I would encourage veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons to think about those VNs who go above and beyond the call of duty for their cause and who would be excellent ambassadors for the profession and nominate them for the Golden Jubilee Award.”

Last year’s winner was Hayley Walters who was recognised for her contribution to animal welfare through her teaching, clinical and international outreach work. Previous recipients were Jean Turner in 2011 and Sue Badger in 2012. No award was made in 2013.

The nomination form for the VN Golden Jubilee Award can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk/goldenjubilee

The winner will be chosen by a panel of VN Council members and will receive the Award at RCVS Day – the College’s Annual General Meeting and Awards Day – on Friday 10 July 2015.

For further information about making a nomination for the award please contact Annette Amato, Deputy Head of Veterinary Nursing, on a.amato@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0713.