I was told this tip by a South African Vet.. Not sure if it has been scientifically researched, but seems to work!

When judging what size of E.T tube to select for a canine patient, take the tube and measure it's width against the gap between the dog's nostrils. (hold the end that attaches to anaesthetic machine and rest the soft end against dog's nose).

Some dogs are easy to guess the tube size on, but others can be deceiving, this trick strangely works, try it and see! I normally select one size up and one size down to have on hand just in case..

The RCVS is reminding veterinary nurses that they need to pay their annual renewal fee before the end of the year or they will be removed from the Register.

Just over 1,000 veterinary nurses have not yet paid their annual renewal fee of £61 and if this is not received on or before 31 December 2016 then their names will be removed from the Register. Those who have their name removed will not be able to use the postnominal ‘RVN’ and will not be able to carry out medical treatments and minor surgery as defined under Schedule 3 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act (www.rcvs.org.uk/delegation).

In order to restore their name to the Register they will have to pay a restoration fee of £51 in addition to the £61 renewal fee.

The easiest way to pay the fee is to log in to the ‘My Account’ area of the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/login) using the credentials provided to each veterinary nurse by the College’s Registration Department. If these credentials have been lost or misplaced the Registration Department can be contacted on 020 7202 0707 or registration@rcvs.org.uk. 

For details about alternative methods of payment visit www.rcvs.org.uk/about-us/fees/how-to-pay or contact the RCVS Finance Team on finance@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0723.

As well as paying the annual renewal fee, veterinary nurses should also confirm their Register and correspondence details, confirm that they comply with the College’s current requirements for continuing professional development and declare any convictions, cautions and/or adverse findings.

Bayer Animal Health (makers of Advocate, Advantix, Advantage, Seresto, Profender, Drontal and Droncit) has launched 'It's a Jungle Out There', an educational initiative aimed at simplifying parasite control for veterinary practices and pet owners alike.

The impressive-looking initiative comes on the back of research carried out by the company which found:

• 73% of veterinary surgeons believe the vast array of different products and formulations currently available for the treatment of parasites can be very confusing and 35% think there are missed opportunities to increase owner compliance¹.
• 45% of dog and cat owners are not confident that their pet is protected from parasites².
• 83% of pet owners do not realise that a combination of products may be needed to obtain the required level of protection.
• 25% would welcome their vet practice discussing parasite protection options with them at their next visit.

Dan White, Group Product Manager for Bayer's Animal Health division said: "Our research concluded that many vet practices are missing an opportunity because of a lack of clarity regarding best practice for parasite control. With ongoing support and practical development tools, Bayer's 'It's a Jungle Out There' Programme is an educational initiative which will arm vet practices with the tools they need to make parasite control clearer and more accessible to owners, helping to ensure the UK is a nation of healthy parasite-free pets and happy owners."

Bayer says the first stage of the 'It's a Jungle Out There' initiative aims to help the veterinary community identify opportunities where they can help to improve pet owner compliance. Vet practices will then be supported in developing a parasite protocol which will then be launched to consumers via a heavyweight advertising and PR campaign.

The initiative comprises a new educational website: www.jungleforvets.co.uk, which includes practice development workbooks, market research and trends, extensive technical information on a wide variety of parasites and CPD assessments. Additional downloadable content includes a range of materials such as images, videos, downloads and web buttons.

From the end of August, practice support materials will be available including a waiting room display pack, parasite guide and dispenser, vet nurse reference guide, waiting room posters, lifestyle questionnaire, badges and static window stickers.

The pet owner focus will begin in September and will include an interactive website, advertising and an extensive print and broadcast PR campaign with celebrity ambassadors David Bellamy and TV vet Steve Leonard. This activity is aimed at driving owners towards their vet practice for advice on parasite risks.

References

1. Research conducted by Bayer Animal Health - survey of 150 UK vets, May 2012
2. Research commissioned by OnePoll - survey of 2,000 British cat and dog owners, May 2012

Boehringer has upgraded its website for the profession - www.boehringer-academy.co.uk - with artificial intelligence (AI) so as to serve relevant content based on the reader's viewing habits.

The upgraded site uses 'machine learning', a type of artificial intelligence based on pattern recognition, to offer personalised content. The technology is now commonly used in consumer sites, such as Netflix and Amazon, but until now has not been used in the veterinary world. Content is further personalised for those vets and nurses that complete their profile on the site.

The upgrade was commissioned after Boehringer carried out a user experience survey of its old website, which revealed that whilst vets appreciated the CPD and educational materials, many were trawling through content that was not of interest to them or struggling to find what they wanted.

Jemima Mead, brand manager at Boehringer, said: "We aimed to create an engaging portal – a one-stop shop for vets who want to access high quality CPD and/or relevant information about any of our products. Vets are busy people so need to find relevant information quickly – giving them more time to focus on their clinical responsibilities. Our new slick site, tailored to their individual professional preferences, provides a valuable service that simply has not existed before."

Vet Futures has published a guest blog by Laura Kidd MRCVS which asks how the profession can increase the number of veterinary nurses entering and staying within the profession?

In her blog, Laura, a VN lecturer and clinical skills tutor for veterinary students, argues that the year-on-year increases in the number of veterinary nurses seems to be insufficient to meet demand. Furthermore, there is a trend towards people leaving the profession relatively early, with the average age being just over 30.

She writes: “Identifying the reasons for VNs leaving the profession at a young age and addressing these, is one potential way of increasing VN numbers in the future.”

Laura argues that poor pay, stress, not feeling rewarded or valued and perceived lack of career progression all contribute to people leaving the profession, although she welcomes initiatives from the British Veterinary Nursing Association (BVNA), BVA, RCVS and others to increase the status of the profession, create more diverse career opportunities and improve the profession’s mental wellbeing. 

However, she adds that: “perhaps we may, reluctantly, have to accept that, for the time-being, veterinary nursing is a young profession with a high turnover.”

With this in mind she suggests that training more veterinary nurses will be the key to increasing the number of qualified members of the profession in the immediate future. In order to do this she believes that more practices need to be supported to become RCVS-approved Training Practices offering clinical training and work experience for student veterinary nurses and that an alternative training pathway for veterinary nurses may need to be looked at.

She adds: “The entry requirements for the VN Diploma are relatively low, yet the qualification is academically demanding: the volume and depth of knowledge is considerable for the level and qualification and the requirement to demonstrate critical reflection through academic writing can be challenging.

“It is regrettable that some student veterinary nurses, who appear to have the qualities to be very good VNs, are lost to the profession, unable to pass awarding body exams. Should we be developing an additional VN training pathway which allows more students to demonstrate they have the required skills to provide high quality nursing to their patients?”

In response to her proposal, this month’s poll will ask visitors “Is there a need for another VN training option?” To read the blog, leave a comment and take part in the poll please visit www.vetfutures.org.uk/discuss

Last month’s poll asked if vets always acted as animal welfare advocates. This was in response to an article by animal welfare expect Professor David Main in which he argues that the profession should do more to demonstrate its animal welfare credentials and introduce safeguards against excessive profit-seeking. Although just 22 people took part in the poll, around two-thirds (68%) of them said that vets do not always act as animal welfare advocates.

Royal Canin is offering a free dental model to practices that order £300 or more of selected Royal Canin diets.

The 3D dental model, which was produced with the help of veterinary dentist John Robinson, demonstrates the recommended method for sectioning and extracting teeth in cats and dogs.

An accurate representation of the animal’s mouth, the teeth are pre-sectioned, indicating how tooth crowns should be divided and where to cut the crown to achieve single root pieces.

Royal Canin's Veterinary Marketing Manager, Marianne Lomberg, said: "We are delighted to offer this new learning tool. These high quality and accurate models will be a valuable addition to the education resources available to veterinary schools and professionals – ultimately helping contribute to a higher standard of dental care available to cats and dogs."

Orders of £300 will receive one free model, orders of £500 will receive two free models.

For more information, contact your Royal Canin Veterinary Business Manager or visit www.vetportal.royalcanin.co.uk.

White Cross Vets has announced the launch of a new practice designed to offer patients, clients and staff the best possible environment, whilst at the same time being environmentally-friendly.

Located in Wolverhampton, the new practice uses different lighting in different parts of the building: 'cool' for public areas such as the waiting room, 'comfortable warm' for the dog, cat and exotic wards and daylight for clinical areas. The LED system uses 60% less energy than conventional lighting and requires half the number of fittings. In addition, following research in the USA at Banfield, consulting rooms are fitted with dimmable lights to ease stress for patients and clients during euthanasia.

Other highlights include a specialist cat ward that White Cross says exceeds the iCatCare Cat Friendly Clinic requirements. The ward includes raised cat kennels that are carefully positioned so that cats can’t see each other, to further minimise stress-levels. There are also separate, sound-proofed wards for dogs and exotic pets.

To reduce anxiety in dogs and cats pre- and post-surgery, the practice uses pheromone diffusers and specially composed music played in the wards.

Managing Director, Tim Harrison said: "We’re delighted to launch our latest practice in Wolverhampton, which is our most environmentally-friendly yet. We’ve incorporated the most successful attributes from all of our 15 other UK practices into its design, and it’s immediately proving popular with clients and most importantly their pets."

Clinic Director James Millington says: "The facilities and attention to detail in this practice are the best I’ve ever seen. There’s no doubt this will translate into the quality of care that our clients receive and their pets deserve."

SPVS has announced that Professor Noel Fitzpatrick will appear ‘In Conversation’ with Martin Whiting, lecturer in ethics at the RVC, at the SPVS/VPMA Congress at the Celtic Manor Resort on 29/30th January 2016.

Noel is both an inspirational and a controversial figure. Few would question that his orthopaedic and neurology work has been both brilliant and life saving. Anyone close to him will tell you he is a dedicated workaholic who believes passionately in the sanctity of life. 

However, some would argue that programmes like the BBC’s Bionic Vet and Channel 4’s Super Vet may raise expectations among pet owners as to what the average vet practice can do. And then there's the question of just how far practitioners should go to save / prolong an animal's life. Just because you can, does it mean you should?

These are the areas that will be explored in this hour long ‘conversation’ in a format borrowed from literary festivals. There will be an opportunity for the audience to submit their questions from the floor. 

For further details and to to book, visit www.spvs-vpma-events.co.uk or call 01453 872731.

A man has been arrested in connection with a series of burglaries at veterinary practices around Elmbridge in Surrey.

So, after months of speculation, the Panorama documentary: It shouldn't happen at a vets' finally aired last night. Early reaction from most of the profession seems to be one of mild relief that by focussing so heavily on Medivet, the documentary has left everyone else more or less unscathed.

There's also a great deal of sympathy for those hard-working and professional vets and nurses who work at Medivet. They're the biggest losers in all of this, tarred by the indefensible behaviour of a very small number of colleagues, and by the very nature of most of the filming in the documentary (give me a fish-eye lapel camera, and I could make even Mother Theresa look like a crack dealer).

But can everyone else really sit back, think 'not my problem', 'sensationalist rubbish', or 'it'll blow over in a week' and move on?

If you consider only the more headline-grabbing elements of the documentary, any of those would be a reasonable position to take. But look beyond 'Vet Makes Fraudulent Insurance Claim', and it seems the producers might accidentally have hit upon some big challenges facing the profession. Might now be a good moment to reflect on and debate some of these issues? 

The first story covered by the documentary was that of an owner who'd found their cat 'weeing blood', taken it to Medivet and been quoted £815.05 for a bank of tests. They'd left in disgust, and visited another practice. This one gave a diagnosis without tests, the bill for which came to 75 quid, including £28 worth of food.

Veterinary costs were a recurring theme throughout the documentary. At the start, Jeremy Vine pointed out the £20,000 lifetime cost of owning a dog, and the £15,000 cost of owning a cat. He said vet bills have trebled in a decade. Mid-way through the programme, the voice-over read: "Veterinary medicine is increasingly high tech, and increasingly expensive. The new generation of vets is taught that working up to an accurate diagnosis may involve extensive tests. More veterinary work means more costs. And later in the documentary, Alex Lee, the reporter, was said to have found evidence of two clients that had spent over £100,000 on their pets over a ten year period.

At the end of it all, the real issue is not about the disparity between one vet's bill and another's, but whether the profession is becoming over-qualified or over-equipped for the job, and consequently at risk of pricing itself out of the market. 

Commenting on state-of-the-art care, Professor Innes from the University of Liverpool said in the programme: "We would never push clients into procedures that are unnecessary, but if people want to access the best healthcare for their pet, that's up to them."

Surely every pet owner wants to access the best healthcare for their pet? Of course, Professor Innes is right, there is a market for complex procedures and diagnostic tests. But there's a very fine line between 'pushing' a client into a procedure, and recommending a procedure (to someone who feels emotionally duty-bound to do the best for their cherished pet).

For me, it was ironically one of the Medivet staff who seemed to hit the nail on the head when she said: "The 'Medivet Way' is to work it up to find out why straight away, so... And people can't afford it now really, you know."

Is the word 'Medivet' in her quote interchangeable with a growing list of practices? Does something need to give? Is it time to call a halt to the development of increasingly complex procedures and diagnostic tests developed to save the life of what is, after all, just a cat or a dog?

Or is it a question of veterinary surgeons ceasing to recommend any particular treatment above a certain cost, and instead simply laying out the options available to the client: "Mrs Jones, you've got three options here. Option one is my best guess, and I might be wrong. Option two is my best guess plus these tests, which will help confirm whether I am right and will cost x. Option three is referral to the world's leading expert, who is based in Dallas, but that'll give time for the MRI on board the specially chartered 747". I'm being flippant, but my point is a serious one: as more expensive treatment and diagnostic options become available, so it becomes ever riskier recommending them, rather than simply informing the owner of their choices.

The next story was an important one too. It was the one where a student nurse and the unqualified reporter were tasked with catheterising a dog unsupervised. They struggled. As did the dog. Thanks to the hidden camera, and the reporter interjecting: 'What a nightmare', it made for dramatic TV. But as many have commented in the VetSurgeon forums, a difficult to catheterise dog is not exactly out of the ordinary. And who thinks this was the first time the procedure has been done by lay staff?

More interesting was the polar opposite interpretations of the law on this issue expressed by Medivet on the one hand, and Professor Sandy Trees for the RCVS on the other. In response to the question of whether a trainee should be placing a catheter, Jeremy Vine read from a statement in which Medivet insisted that everything it allows its trainees to do is legal, and that there was no definitive list of procedures that could be carried out by trainees. Two minutes later, and we had Professor Trees appearing to contradict Medivet's statement.

Then we see the reporter and a student nurse taking a blood sample from a cat, before the arrival of a vet. Medivet says: "This procedure was completely legal, normal and was carried out at the direction of a vet. This means that the vet does not have to be present at the time. [The tasks] were not illegal. The trainee veterinary nurses were properly trained and experienced. RCVS inspectors have never raised this as an issue, and it is common practice." But when Jeremy Vine then asked Professor Trees: "Would it be OK for a student veterinary nurse to take a blood sample before a vet arrived into the practice", the answer is no. When pressed: "So supervision means that the vet has to be in the building", Professor Trees hesitates before delivering his more ambiguous reply: 'I would say so, yes'.

How on earth did that happen? How did one of the biggest veterinary groups come to be at loggerheads with the regulator on TV? Remember that Medivet would have had some time to prepare its response, and presumably had it checked by a team of lawyers first. Professor Trees may or may not have had the luxury of as much warning. Still, if el Presidente himself cannot give more than a personal opinion in answer to such an important question, something is amiss. After all, people's careers are at stake here.

The issue here is whether regulation needs to become more prescriptive. For example, is it fair that the responsibility for defining precisely what is 'minor surgery (not involving entry into a body cavity)', and therefore able to be performed by a qualified veterinary nurse, currently rests with the individual veterinary surgeon. And if it comes to it, the only way the veterinary surgeon is going to know whether he or she made the right call is if and when it comes to be tested in court.

Talk about closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Surely it is time now, particularly in the (like it or not) increasingly corporate and less personally accountable world we live in, for the profession and everyone in it to have clearer leadership in terms of what is and what is not acceptable.

I won't dwell on any of the other stories covered by the documentary, because I don't think any of them are individually revealing of very much.

A student nurse struck a dog. 'Walloped' according to the reporter; 'smacked' according to an  onlooker. There's a difference. Either way, a difficult one to defend.

Then a member of staff (and I couldn't work out whether it was the vet or the nursing assistant) started playing with an anaesthetised kitten as if it were a puppet. That was damning for the lack of humanity it showed.

Next we saw a new grad trying to intubate a cat. For some reason, it didn't go as smoothly as it should. Some speculation in the VetSurgeon forums as to whether she applied the local anaesthetic correctly or not, but the cat was fine. Mistakes happen.

Next we saw a dog that had a condition which made it susceptible to cuts. A 'new girl' says she thinks she must have accidentally cut its pad as she closed the kennel door. Not the end of the world, except we then see the staff plotting to tell the owner that it happened before the dog arrived at the practice, and that they would need £13 worth of Fuciderm. Again, it isn't what you would call the crime of the century. But it was nevertheless a damning piece of film for the lack of honesty shown by the staff.

Then we had the case of the dodgy insurance claims, where the practice allegedly split what should have been one claim into three 'by accident', so that they could effectively increase the total amount the owner would be able to claim. Difficult to get really het up about this one. I mean, I know it's wrong. But it wasn't exactly in the same league as Lord Brocket taking the oxyacetylene torch to his car collection. And as far as I could see, the unwitting beneficiaries of this one were the dog and its  owner.  No, the real problem was that in the same breath as Medivet proclaimed its innocence, its employee was there in technicolor explaining exactly how and why the deed was done.

Guy Carter, one of the Medivet partners was next on the rack. The Panorama reporter alleged that he instructed staff to bill a client for a monitor that wasn't used. The company says it was. So it's their word against hers. Unfortunately, the company's word wasn't looking that good by this stage in the proceedings.

As I said earlier, these things don't individually tell anyone much. But collectively, I wonder whether they don't highlight another important issue, which is the apparent 'disconnect' (hate using the word like that, just can't think of a better alternative at this time of night) between what the public wants (i.e. a close, trusting relationship with an accountable James Herriot-type-figure, personified in the film by Bob Stevenson), and what the corporates can realistically deliver.

I was chatting about this with a locum vet this afternoon. His experience is that in small practices where the owner is present, there is always a better atmosphere. Staff take more pride in their work, and deliver a higher standard of care than in the corporates.

Isn't that really what the documentary showed? Yes, they were especially excruciating examples of how people behave when they don't have a real sense of ownership in a business. But isn't a lower, less personal standard of care an inevitable consequence of corporatisation?

Incidentally, my apologies for labelling Medivet a corporate rather than a partnership, but like it or not, that's the public perception of a chain.

Finally, the star of the show made his grand entrance. Kfir Segev, charged with recommending £2200 worth of MRI scan for a dog that was obviously dying. Now that is despicable. He's found guilty of unprofessional conduct, and struck off. I suppose 'vet commits fraud, is found out and punished' is not the stuff of which great documentaries are made, so Panorama tried to make something of the fact that he continued to work for 28 days whilst deciding whether to exercise his right to appeal. And? Perhaps sensing they still had a bit of a non-story on their hands, they tried to make an issue out of the fact that he'd continued to work as a practice manager after being struck off. It was all a bit lame, really.

Still, not as lame as the finale, which was the 'revelation' that Medivet collected blood from rescue dogs, in return for donations of food and supplies. Panorama claimed the blood was sold at a profit. Medivet claimed it is subsidised. Does anyone actually care either way?

Since the documentary was broadcast last night, Medivet has issued a further statement in which it does the honourable thing, and takes responsibility for everything it needed to. Medivet will recover from this. If the professionalism of the response is anything to go by, it will emerge stronger.

Still, the big questions remain. How to address the spiralling costs that accompany the latest advances. Can the profession afford, any longer, to leave so much to the discretion of the individual, or is it time to demand a more prescriptive regulatory environment? And finally, how can the corporates deliver the kind of service that the public seems to want? Doubtless there will be some who'd like them to fail in this regard. But as we've just seen, it does nobody any favours if they are allowed to do so in a way that threatens to bring the whole profession into disrepute.

Recruitment agency Recruit4Vets has published the results of two small surveys it conducted amongst veterinary surgeons and nurses to investigate typical rates of pay for permanent and locum veterinary surgeons and nurses.

251 veterinary surgeons and 124 veterinary nurses took part in the Permanent Salary Survey. 109 veterinary surgeons and 51 veterinary nurses took part in the Locum Pay Rate Survey.

The majority of respondents to the Permanent Salary Survey (69%) worked in the Midlands and south, but the survey didn't make any allowance for experience or qualifications, so it's difficult to read much into the reported figures. However, they were as follows:

The Locum Pay Rate Survey also made no allowance for experience or qualifications, but it may be that locum pay rates are less experience-sensitive than permanent salaries.

The average charge rate for locum veterinary surgeons was £210 per day, and for veterinary nurses, around £13.50 per hour. The majority of the locum respondents (69%) worked in the Midlands and south.

Interestingly, 53.5% of the locums polled said that demand for their services had increased over the year.

If you are a locum, don't forget to complete your profile on VetNurse.co.uk and add your flag to the VetNurse Locum Map.

Invicta Animal Health has launched an enhanced version of the ChroMyco Duo dermatophyte test.

The tests use a new round plate with an improved lid design. In addition, the plates are wider and deeper providing 25% more culture medium.

According to the company, the dual plate test with Dermatophyte Test Media (DTM) on one side and an Enhanced Sporulation Agar (ESA) on the other greatly reduces the risk of false positive results. 

The test is performed by veterinary staff taking a pluck of fur or skin scrape from the lesion and inoculating both sides. After three to six days of room temperature incubation, if dermatophytes are present, the DTM will turn red and the ESA will turn blue-green.

Rob Watkins, Managing Director of Invicta, said: "We always listen and respond to customer feedback. The new design plates provide reduced condensation levels and by being easier to inoculate will enhance the usability and hence reliability of the test."

The price remains unchanged at £32.00 for 5 tests, from veterinary wholesalers.

For more information call 01403 791313 or email mail@invictavet.com.

MWI Animal Health, a part of AmerisourceBergen, has announced the acquisition of St. Francis Group, the UK’s largest animal health buying group.

The acquisition of St. Francis Group highlights AmerisourceBergen and MWI’s continued global expansion in the animal health sector, while also positioning MWI to better support the viability of independent veterinary practices internationally.

St. Francis Group, which represents more than 460 member practices throughout the UK and Northern Ireland, has steadily grown its member base and service offerings. The company aims to save its members time and money on veterinary products by providing information, technology and support that simplifies their processes, maximises purchasing benefits and reduces administration so members can focus on clinical care.

James F. Cleary, Jr., Executive Vice President and President, MWI Animal Health said: "At MWI, we’re focused on providing independent veterinary practices with the tools and resources they need to thrive in a competitive animal health marketplace. St. Francis Group is dedicated to this same mission and we believe that adding the resources of AmerisourceBergen to their existing expertise and tools will further strengthen the impact they’re able to create for their members."

Alan White, Managing Director, St. Francis Group, said: "We’re proud of the work we’ve done to encourage the health and viability of our member practices. We look forward to working with MWI and AmerisourceBergen to further expand our capabilities with the goal of providing even greater value to current and future members of St. Francis Group."

AmerisourceBergen completed its acquisition of MWI Veterinary Supply, Inc. in February of 2015. MWI completed the acquisition of Vetswest Limited, a leading veterinary support services provider in the UK in August of 2015.

MWI says that through the acquisition, St. Francis Group will continue to negotiate with manufacturers based their ability to best meet member needs and purchase products from preferred wholesaler partners.

For more information about MWI Animal Health, visit www.mwianimalhealth.com.