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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has called for comment on a new draft health protocol which aims to deal compassionately with veterinary surgeons who have health problems, such as alcohol or drug addiction or mental health issues, while continuing to protect the public interest.

According to independent legal advice sought by the College, such an approach is appropriate and necessary in order for the RCVS to fulfil its regulatory responsibilities - similar systems exist within other regulators.

RCVS President Peter Jinman said: "At present, where veterinary surgeons suffer from health problems that affect their fitness to practise, they may be referred to a formal and public Disciplinary Committee inquiry and stopped from practising. But it is recognised that this is not always in the public interest, which could be protected by a more compassionate approach, involving medical help, workplace supervision and continued practice, subject to conditions."

As a result, the draft Protocol has been developed by the RCVS Preliminary Investigation and Advisory Committees. It formalises and builds on steps taken by the Preliminary Investigation Committee in the past to help veterinary surgeons to recover from health problems affecting fitness to practise, without referral to the RCVS Disciplinary Committee. Often those veterinary surgeons are also receiving help from the Veterinary Benevolent Fund's Veterinary Surgeons' Health Support Programme.

The Protocol encourages anyone coming into contact with veterinary surgeons - including other veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses, members of practice staff, clients and healthcare professionals - who have concerns about a veterinary surgeon's health to report those concerns to the RCVS as soon as is reasonably practicable. Veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who are concerned about the health of a veterinary surgeon must also take steps to ensure that animals are not put at risk and that the interests of the public, including those of their colleagues, are protected.

A similar protocol would be introduced for Registered Veterinary Nurses when the equivalent disciplinary system comes into force next year.

The draft protocol, together with recommended changes to the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct to support the change, is available online (www.rcvs.org.uk/healthprotocol) and comments are requested by 8 October 2010. The comments will be considered by Advisory Committee and then RCVS Council.

 Comments should be sent to Simon Wiklund, Advisory Manager, on s.wiklund@rcvs.org.uk. A hard copy of the consultation document is available on request.

The RCVS has published a revised complaints procedure on RCVSonline.

The procedure represents the culmination of 12 months of work from the College's Preliminary Investigations Committee, with the aim of making the decision-making processes more transparent.

There are four information packs about the complaints procedure, all of which are available on RCVSonline. These are for complainants, veterinary surgeons who are complained about, those involved in decision-making at the RCVS and additional guidance for Lay Observers who provide independent, lay input to the process.

View an introduction to the RCVS complaints procedure and download the protocols by clicking here

.

On the 1st July, the RCVS will publish new guidelines about whether procedures count as routine veterinary practice (RVP), clinical veterinary research (CVR) or as experimental.

The new guidance replaces Chapter 25 of the Supporting Guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct.

Routine Veterinary Practice describes the procedures and techniques performed on animals by veterinary surgeons (or veterinary nurses under their direction) in the course of their professional duties, which ensure the health and welfare of animals committed to their care. 

CVR is when routine procedures are undertaken for the benefit of the animal/s, with the concurrent intention to generate new knowledge that benefits animals, such as developing new procedures, improving a diagnosis, changing a routine procedure, or comparing existing procedures.

While the idea of CVR is not new, this is the first time that the RCVS has provided specific guidance on it.

The guidance also introduces an obligation, which comes into effect on 1st September, to obtain ethics review for all studies where one would be expected to obtain permission from the owner/keeper of an animal prior to being enrolled, or when consent is needed for use of previously collected samples or the use of data from an animal.

The newly drafted Chapter 25 gives extra guidance on the following areas:

• What do you want to do?
• Why do you want to do it?
• Does the procedure or technique include the use of a medicine prescribed under the cascade?
• Do you have informed consent?
• Is this clinical veterinary research?
• Has the procedure or technique been performed before?
• Have you performed the procedure or technique before?
• Do you need to obtain ethics review?

Chair of the Standards Committee and incoming RCVS President, Dr Melissa Donald (pictured right), said: “We hope that the guidance will inspire confidence in our veterinary colleagues at all levels to undertake treatment routes which develop veterinary knowledge as a whole, while still being for the benefit of the animal being treated.” 

For further information or advice on whether a proposed procedure would be covered by the guidance, contact the Standards and Advice team via advice@rcvs.org.uk.

The new guidance will be found on the RCVS website from the 1st July: www.rcvs.org.uk/recognised

For further information in relation to ethics review of proposed veterinary clinical research studies, contact the Secretary to the RCVS Ethics Review Panel via ethics@rcvs.org.uk or visit www.rcvs.org.uk/ethics

The RCVS has launched a consultation about Schedule 3 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, which defines what acts of veterinary surgery can be performed by veterinary nurses.

For veterinary nurses, Schedule 3 is arguably one of the most important aspects of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, partly defining what it means to be a nurse, and defining what tasks veterinary surgeons can reasonably delegate. 

Thus far, however, Schedule 3 has only been loosely defined, allowing for veterinary nurses to (under the direction of their veterinary surgeon employer) 'give medical treatment or carry out acts of minor surgery, not involving entry into a body cavity'.

There is evidence from the RCVS/BVNA VN Futures project that uncertainty about what this definition actually means in practice has stopped veterinary surgeons from delegating tasks which could both improve practice efficiency and make the role of the veterinary nurse more interesting, varied and rewarding. 

The consultation - and the broader review of Schedule 3 of which it forms a part - aims to create a 'clarified and bolstered VN role via a reformed Schedule 3'.

Liz Cox, Chair of both the Schedule 3 Working Party and VN Council, said: "The future of veterinary nursing is both challenging and exciting, with the convergence of such factors as Brexit, the development of new technologies, and the increasing specialisation of veterinary surgeons, and we would very much like to know how you think the role of veterinary nurse will evolve.

"In light of this we very much encourage all veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons to complete this consultation. Evidence gathered during the initial stage of the VN Futures project suggested that there is some uncertainty around the interpretation of Schedule 3 in clinical practice. For example, many veterinary nurses do not undertake Schedule 3 work or are uncertain as to whether they do, while some veterinary surgeons are reluctant to delegate Schedule 3 tasks to veterinary nurses.

"With this survey we hope to get a better steer on how Schedule 3 is used and interpreted in practice on a day-to-day basis and gather views on where both veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses feel the current legislation could be clarified. Furthermore, we also want to know if there are areas of practice that are currently prohibited to nurses under current Schedule 3 arrangements that the professions believe could be opened up to veterinary nurses as a means of bolstering the profession."

Liz Cox and David Catlow MRCVS, Chair of the Standards Committee, will also be presenting a webinar on Thursday 11 May from 1pm to 2pm titled ‘The Art of Delegation – Schedule 3 Consultation’. It will focus on Schedule 3 and the role of the veterinary nurse, and explore possible areas to consider when responding to the consultation. To subscribe to the webinar, please visit The Webinar Vet’s website: www.thewebinarvet.com/webinar/art-delegation-schedule-3-consultation/

All eligible veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons have been emailed with a link to survey.

Further information about the VN Futures project can be found at www.vetfutures.org.uk/vnfutures

Three veterinary surgeons have been suspended for one month by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after admitting dishonesty in relation to the submission of mobility score assessment readings required as part of a dairy animal health and welfare scheme.

Alexander McKinstry and Andrew Rutherford were both charged with writing letters indicating that Rebecca Inman had undertaken an assessment when in fact they had done the assessments themselves, the former without Ms Inman's knowledge, the latter with. 

The charges were that all three, who worked at the same practice group in North-West, had been dishonest, misleading and risked undermining procedures designed to promote animal welfare. 

At the outset of the hearing, all three admitted the charges against them and the Committee found serious professional misconduct in the case of all admitted charges.

The Committee then considered the sanctions for all three of the respondents.

In the cases against Mr McKinstry and Mr Rutherford, the Committee considered that the conduct was premeditated, that they had an increased position of trust and responsibility as practice directors at the time of the misconduct and that it was a breach of trust for the farm clients.

Additionally, Mr McKinstry had put Dr Inman’s professional reputation in jeopardy by not informing her of his conduct.

In mitigation, the Committee considered that there was no harm or risk of harm to animals, the conduct was not done for personal financial gain, that both had been open and frank in their dealings with the RCVS and had shown insight into their behaviour, and their previous good character and unblemished careers.

Regarding Dr Inman, the aggravating factors were the abuse of her position of trust as a registered mobility scorer and the breach of trust with the farm clients.

In mitigation the Committee considered that it had been an isolated incident involving, from Dr Inman’s point of view, a single telephone call.

It also considered that there was no risk of harm, no personal financial gain, her open and frank admissions in dealings with the RCVS, demonstration of insight, previously unblemished record, and efforts to avoid repeats and remediate past misconduct.

Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee carefully weighed the demands of the public interest, as well as the previously stated mitigating and aggravating factors and all the particular circumstances before it.

"The Committee concluded that a period of suspension was sufficient and proportionate in this case to meet the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards.

"It had a sufficient deterrent effect upon others in the profession and was sufficient to mark that the disgraceful conduct was unacceptable.

“The Committee considered all of the factors before it, and decided that given the personal mitigation in this case, as set out above, a period of one month was appropriate and proportionate in all the circumstances."

The full findings of the Disciplinary Committee regarding this case can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary 

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded one veterinary surgeon and suspended another for four months, following a joint hearing regarding their professional conduct while they were in practice in Slough, Berkshire in August 2016.

The Disciplinary Committee considered a number of charges against Javier Salas Navarro MRCVS and Roman Kristin over 35 days.

The charges against Dr Navarro concerned his treatment of a kitten named Marnie. They included: 

• In August 2016, failing to read the anaesthesia consent form in relation to a surgical spay he performed;

• When Marnie was readmitted for surgery, failing to read the anaesthesia consent form, failing to undertake adequate assessment of Marnie’s condition; performing surgery without adequately considering her condition; subjecting Marnie to anaesthesia without recognising the seriousness of her illness; failing to obtain informed consent from the owners; administering medication which was contra-indicated; and failure to make an adequate record of his involvement in Marnie’s care.

The charges against Dr Kristin also related to his treatment of Marnie. They included:  

• In August 2016, failing to undertake an adequate assessment of her condition; failure to recognise and record the fact that Marnie could not pass urine; failure to refer or offer her for specialist treatment; and failure to ensure Marnie received care and treatment overnight. 

• When admitting Marnie for surgery, that he made a number of clinical mistakes including failure to gain informed consent; and failure to recognise the seriousness of her illness;

• that there were a number of failings in relation to Marnie’s care, including failure to arrange adequate overnight care, failure to monitor and record her condition, and failure to gain informed consent for the overnight care.

• that he failed to advise Marnie’s owners that he suspected her uterers had been ligated during the spay, failed to advise Marnie’s owners that she required specialist veterinary treatment; and advised that Marnie undergo further surgery at the practice in spite of this meaning her having to undergo further anaesthesia in a week and with poor chances of survival;

• that the above conduct was misleading and dishonest.

The Disciplinary Committee found a number of the facts in the charges against both Dr Navarro and Dr Kristin proven (the full details can be found in the documentation at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary). 

The Committee found that Dr Navarro breached a number of aspects of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons including: making animal health and welfare the first consideration when attending to animals; the provision of appropriate and adequate veterinary care; responsible prescription, supply and administration of medicines; communication with professional colleagues to ensure the health and welfare of the animal; being open and honest with clients and respecting their needs and requirements; effective communication with clients; keeping clear and accurate clinical records; and working with the veterinary team to coordinate the care of animals. 

Of the proven charges, the Committee found that his initial failure to read Marnie’s anaesthesia consent form on 5 August did not amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, but that the repetition of this failure on 9 August did amount to disgraceful conduct. It also found that Dr Navarro’s failure to undertake adequate assessment and perform surgery without this assessment amounted to serious professional misconduct. Furthermore, the Committee found that subjecting Marnie to anaesthesia in spite of her being unwell, failure to obtain informed consent and failure to keep adequate records also amounted to serious professional misconduct. 

For Dr Kristin, in summary, the Committee found not proven the allegation that he had failed to respond on 5 August 2016 to concerns from Marnie’s owners about her condition while she was recovering from a surgical spay and also all the allegations relating to Dr Kristin’s admission of Marnie to the practice on 9 August on the basis that it was not satisfied so as to be sure that Dr Kristin had been the veterinary surgeon who admitted Marnie on that day. 

The Committee found proven the remaining charges and found he breached the following parts of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons: making animal health and welfare the first consideration when attending to animals; keeping within area of competence and referring responsibly; providing appropriate and adequate veterinary care; responsible prescribing, supply and administration of medicines; communication with colleagues to ensure the health and welfare of the animal; being open and honest with clients and respecting their needs and requirements; communicating effectively with clients and obtaining informed consent; keeping clear and accurate clinical records; and working with the veterinary team to coordinate the care of animals.

Of the proven charges, the Committee determined that his failure to adequately assess Marnie’s health, to obtain a clinical history, to undertake blood tests and recognise that she was seriously ill, amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect and led to “Marnie’s underlying condition going undetected and undoubtedly contributed to her eventual death two days later”. 

The Committee also found that Dr Kristin’s decision to hospitalise Marnie without adequate overnight care, place her on IV fluids without monitoring the treatment or her condition, and failure to obtain adequate informed consent – among other things – amounted disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "As a direct result of Dr Kristin’s acts and omissions, Marnie was left alone overnight on fluids when those fluids had nowhere to go. Had he done his job properly he would have known that and Marnie could have avoided the prolonged suffering caused by the chosen course of treatment that did not address the underlying condition. Every element of Dr Kristin’s behaviour was catastrophic for Marnie, and yet he took no personal responsibility for her welfare and just went home.” 

Following its findings on disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, the Committee then went on to consider its sanction for both Dr Navarro and Dr Kristin.

In respect of Dr Navarro, the Committee considered the mitigating factors including previous good character, admissions to some of the facts of the case from the outset; genuine insight and remorse into the seriousness of the actions; his youth and inexperience; and relevant and good-quality testimonials from colleagues. The Committee noted that the testimonials were universally positive and demonstrated that Dr Navarro had reflected on his conduct, had become more mature and confident in his practice and made efforts to rectify the areas in which he had fallen below standards. 

Stuart Drummond said: “Although the consequences for Marnie and her owners were clearly devastating, the Committee considered that Dr Navarro’s part in her demise has to be seen in the context of all the evidence. In light of the extensive mitigation, including significant evidence of insight and remediation, the Committee was able to conclude that Dr Navarro did not represent a future risk to animals or the public. In such circumstances, the Committee considered that it was not necessary to restrict Dr Navarro’s registration and that a reprimand was the appropriate and proportionate sanction in his case.”

In relation to Dr Kristin, the Committee took into account positive character evidence from Mr Karel Daniel, a semi-retired veterinary surgeon and Vice-President of the Czech Republic Veterinary Chamber, a similar body to the RCVS in that country, as well as other testimonials on his behalf. In mitigation, the Committee considered Dr Kristin’s previously unblemished career, the fact that it was a single case involving a single animal; some development of insight into his conduct; no evidence of repetition; expressions of remorse; the impact of a family bereavement during the course of proceedings; and his financial position.

However, the Committee also took into account aggravating factors including a lack of candour from Dr Kristin when he was giving evidence, demonstrated by a tendency to blame others rather than take responsibility, as well as his recklessness in suggesting a third operation on Marnie that was not in her interests, rather than referring her into specialist care.

The final decision of the Committee on the sanction for Dr Kristin was that, given the seriousness of the misconduct, it was satisfied that this warranted a six-month suspension period. However, given the mitigating factors, the Committee decided that four months was appropriate and proportionate. 

Commenting on the sanction Stuart Drummond said: “The Committee determined that it was important a clear message be sent that this sort of behaviour is wholly inappropriate and not to be tolerated. It brings discredit upon the respondent and discredit upon the profession and, most importantly, caused harm to Marnie and great distress to her owners.

"The Committee did consider whether to remove Dr Kristin from the Register. However, in light of the mitigation in this case, the fact that this was a single case in an otherwise unblemished career, together with the unlikelihood he would repeat his disgraceful conduct, the Committee decided that, in all the circumstances, to remove him from the Register would be disproportionate.

"The Committee therefore decided to order that the Registrar suspend Dr Kristin’s registration…. The Committee was satisfied that a period of four months was appropriate and proportionate in all the circumstances."

The full facts and findings from the case can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary 

The RCVS has announced far-reaching changes to the CPD requirements for veterinary surgeons, agreed by Council at its June meeting.

The proposals put to Council by the Education Committee included six key recommendations for changes to CPD policy: 

• To change the CPD requirement – as stated in the Codes of Professional Conduct – to 35 hours per calendar year for veterinary surgeons and 15 hours in the same period for veterinary nurses, from the start of 2020. This replaces the previous requirement of 105 hours and 45 hours of CPD over a rolling three-year period for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses respectively. 

• Making the use of the new CPD platform (currently in development) for recording learning and development mandatory from 2022. 

• Giving veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who, upon renewing their registration, have confirmed their compliance with the requirement, the opportunity to download a certificate demonstrating this. 

• The introduction of an administration fee (which is currently yet to- be determined) that will be charged to any veterinary surgeons or veterinary nurses who continually (defined as two or more years in a row) fail to confirm their compliance with the requirement and/or fail to respond to requests from the College for their CPD records.

• Changing the words of the Codes of Professional Conduct to include the fact that CPD should be ‘regular’ and ‘relevant’.

• The continuation of the RCVS CPD Referral Group, which meets to consider what further steps should be taken in cases of veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who continually fail to comply with CPD requirements and/or respond to requests. 

RCVS Council agreed, by a majority vote, to approve the above recommendations. 

RCVS Council member Dr Sue Paterson (pictured right), who introduced the paper and is the incoming Chair of the Education Committee, said: "While the majority of both veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses do recognise the importance of continuous learning and development for their professional practice, their clients and, ultimately, animal health and welfare, it’s clear that there has been a cohort of people in both professions who take a more lax view of undertaking CPD.

"The changes to our CPD policy are intended to tighten up our processes and are targeted at those who, when challenged about why they have not undertaken sufficient CPD, say that they will meet the requirement one or two years down the line as part of the rolling three-year system. The administration fee also recognises the amount of time and effort spent by staff in the College in contacting and chasing up those people who aren’t compliant. 

"However, we also recognise the fact that some members of the profession may have personal circumstances that means they are unable to meet their CPD requirement in a given year – whether that’s because of parental leave or other caring responsibilities, or long-term sick leave. So we will be retaining flexibility within the system and will be considerate and compassionate when taking into account individual circumstances when considering non-compliance.

"Furthermore, in light of the fact that the majority of vets and vet nurses do meet the requirement but also often go above-and-beyond it, we also thought it would be a good idea to introduce a downloadable compliance certificate in recognition of their achievement. This could be displayed, for example, in the practice and would be particularly useful for Practice Standard Scheme assessments.

"Over the coming months we will be fine-tuning the details of these policies and will be making further decisions about how they will work in practice in due course."

Veterinary surgeons and nurses who feel they will struggle to complete their CPD requirement within a 12-month period due to personal circumstances can contact RCVS confidentially at any time to discuss their difficulties on cpd@rcvs.org.uk

For full details about the decision, you can download the RCVS Council paper at: www.rcvs.org.uk/document-library/rcvs-council-papers-13-june-2019/

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has refused Warwick Seymour-Hamilton's eighth application to be restored to the Register since he was struck off 26 years ago.

Mr Seymour-Hamilton was originally removed from the Register following an inspection of his Kent practice in 1993 which found that his operating theatre “showed a total disregard of basic hygiene and care for animals and was such as to bring the profession into disrepute”.

Since being removed from the Register, Mr Seymour-Hamilton has made applications for restoration in 1995, 2010, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019. Each was rejected.

In his latest application, Mr Seymour-Hamilton said that he did not want to re-join the Register in order to practise but to facilitate his research in the area of herbal medicine.

The Committee found that while Mr Seymour-Hamilton had accepted some of the findings of the original case, he disagreed with important facts, such as whether or not his surgery was open at the time of the inspection, and showed ‘minimal insight’ into the seriousness of the findings.

The Committee also voiced concerns over public protection and animal welfare should he be restored, saying that he had demonstrated little or no understanding of the purpose of regulation. The Committee also noted that he had, by his own admission, spayed two cats at a practice in Calais in recent years despite his long absence from the Register and unregistered status as a veterinary surgeon in the UK or France.

In considering his conduct since leaving the Register, the Committee found that Mr Seymour-Hamilton had admitted to a number of instances of conduct which it found ‘reprehensible’. This included carrying out spays; not self-isolating after testing positively for coronavirus and, in fact, travelling through France and Spain in breach of the lockdown put in place due to the pandemic; deliberately trying to re-infect himself with coronavirus and then visiting a vulnerable person without maintaining social distancing; treating his own animals with untested herbal remedies; and using his own remedies to treat people, which, in one case, included a nine-year-old boy in Greece.

In summing up Judith Way, who was chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee has concluded that he has not satisfied it that he is fit to be restored to the Register. He has exhibited a disregard for regulation and compliance with the law. He lacks an understanding as to why he has not been restored in the past. He has not set about addressing any of his shortcomings. He relies wholeheartedly on his research, yet he does not support that research with any real peer-reviewed publications and he fails to acknowledge the consequences of being out-of-practice for so long. He has misplaced confidence in his own abilities and does not recognise that his approach and/or actions can represent a danger to animals and to the public. The Committee has therefore reached the conclusion that the applicant is not a fit person to be restored to the Register.”

The full findings of the restoration hearing for Mr Seymour-Hamilton can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has today issued a new position statement on the veterinary use of complementary and alternative medicines, homeopathy in particular.

With regard to all types of complementary and alternative medicine, the statement says that the College expects MsRCVS to offer treatments that "are underpinned by a recognised evidence base or sound scientific principles."

The new position statement states very clearly that homeopathy falls below this benchmark: "Homeopathy exists without a recognised body of evidence for its use. Furthermore, it is not based on sound scientific principles."

The full statement reads:

RCVS President Professor Stephen May said: "It is fair to say that debates on either side of this issue have been passionate and this too has been reflected in the debates that we have had amongst Council members as to how to best articulate the College’s position on complementary and alternative medicines.

"What we have is a statement that reinforces the evidence-based and sound scientific foundations of our profession and our commitment to put animal health and welfare at the forefront of all we do.

"I am very pleased that the overwhelming majority of Council members agreed with this statement and that the College has a firm and clear position on this important topic."

RCVS Junior Vice-President Professor David Argyle has announced that he will step aside from his Council duties until such time as the College is able to conclude an investigation into allegations of bullying at his workplace. 

The College has confirmed that it has now received an official complaint about the matter and it is now investigating under its normal 'concerns' investigation process.

Professor Argyle made a private statement about the allegations to RCVS Council at its meeting today, having already answered written questions from a number of Council members in the preceding days.

The Council did not ask Professor Argyle to step aside, but acknowledged that this was his choice, made for personal reasons.

The College said that in line with its normal protocols, and to ensure fairness for all parties, it will not make any further public comment about the investigation for the time being. However, it wanted to stress that it remains firmly committed to following due and proper process in all its regulatory activities.

The RCVS) is calling on veterinary surgeons to help it recruit around 30 animal owners and keepers for a new Public Advisory Group to help guide the College's policies.

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.

Cambridge-based Nebojsa Petrovic MRCVS has been suspended by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for six months for dishonestly providing false information related to the export of horses.

Nebojsa Petrovic faced eight charges, although charge four was withdrawn at the start of the hearing.

At the outset of the hearing, Dr Petrovic admitted a number of allegations, including:

Charge 1 - that in November 2021, he falsely represented to the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) that blood samples he submitted in respect of four horses were from the same horses as the samples he submitted on 1 November 2021.

Charge 2 – that in November 2021, he told APHA’s Veterinary Head of Border Control that he had checked the microchips and/or passports of the four horses when he hadn’t done so;

Charge 3 – that in November 2021, he signed Export Health Certificates for the four horses, in which it was stated that blood samples taken from these horses on October 2021 had been submitted to the Veterinary Laboratories Agency laboratory, Weybridge, with a negative result for Leptospirosis when in fact those samples had tested positive;

Charge 5 – that he failed to send the APHA’s Centre for International Trade, within seven days of signing, certified copies of the export health certificates;

Charge 7 – that in January 2022, he told an APHA officer that he was satisfied that he had properly identified the horses for which you had submitted the two samples when he had not done so;

Charge 8c – that he risked undermining government procedures designed to promote animal health and international relations in relation to the charges he admitted; and

Charge 9 – that in February 2022, he failed to have in place any or any adequate Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII).

Dr Petrovic, who was at the time of all the allegations carrying his duties as an Official Veterinarian on behalf of the APHA, denied charge 6 – that in November 2021, he failed to take sufficient steps to prevent the four horses being exported to Serbia, when he had been informed that there were concerns and/or doubts about whether those horses had tested negative for Leptospirosis.

He also denied charge 8 – that in relation to the allegations relating to his submitting the blood samples to the Veterinary Laboratories Agency on 8 November 2021, certification of the Export Health Certificates on 16 November 2021 and his subsequent conversations with members of APHA staff regarding both sets of documentation he had acted in a misleading (Charge 8a) and/or dishonest (Charge 8b) way.

The Committee considered evidence presented by the College including hearing from APHA staff witnesses called by the College and also hearing from a witness and character evidence presented by Dr Petrovic. Dr Petrovic also gave evidence to the Committee.

It found most charges proven with the exception of Charge 6, and also found that Dr Petrovic had not acted dishonestly in submitting the blood samples or certifying the EHC’s as alleged in charges 1 and 3.

The Committee concluded that Dr Petrovic had acted in a dishonest and misleading way in his conversations with the APHA staff as detailed in charges 2 and 7.

The Committee then considered whether the individual proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, determining that, with the exception of charges 3 and 5, all proven charges amounted to disgraceful conduct.

Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “In the Committee’s judgement, the respondent’s position as an Official Veterinarian also meant that he had a responsibility to ensure that the trust which was delegated to him was not breached.

"In his role, the respondent was acting in a position of trust, as a representative of the government, and the Committee found that he had breached that trust…. It took these matters into account when determining that the respondent’s behaviour cumulatively amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”

Regarding the sanction for Dr Petrovic, the Committee considered his request that it consider suspension, rather than removal, from the Register.

In terms of aggravating factors – the Committee found that Dr Petrovic had acted without integrity, recklessly and without regard for the APHA’s systems relating to the export of animals.

In mitigation, it took into account: the fact that no animal was harmed by his conduct, albeit there was risk of harm; his long and unblemished career in the UK since 1994; admissions he had made to the APHA and Disciplinary Committee at the first day of the hearing; had remediated his lack of professional indemnity insurance by putting in place a retrospective policy; the significant amount of time that had elapsed since the conduct; and six positive character references from experienced fellow veterinary surgeons who held him in high regard.

Paul Morris added: “The Committee took into account that the respondent had continued to work as a veterinary surgeon with no subsequent complaints and that he had a previous long and unblemished record and there was support by several positive character references.

"The Committee also took into consideration the pressures of Brexit and the pandemic which the respondent had faced at the time, but which were unlikely to occur again.

“The Committee had concluded that the respondent was unlikely to repeat similar behaviour or to pose a risk to animals, particularly because he was no longer involved in certifying animals for export.

"Furthermore his admissions to most of the matters it had found proved showed that he had some insight.

"The Committee was also satisfied that the respondent had a genuine concern for the welfare of animals and it noted that the Respondent did not require any further training to continue in practice as a veterinary surgeon.

 “The Committee therefore concluded that a suspension from the Register was the proportionate sanction in this case taking into account the seriousness of the conduct it had found proved but also all of the mitigating factors.”

The Committee recommended that Dr Petrovic be suspended for six months to reflect the seriousness of the conduct and the damage it could do to public confidence in the profession, while meeting the public interest and sending a clear message of deterrence.

www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary