The meeting follows growing concerns expressed both within the profession and in the national media about the shortage of veterinary surgeons in the UK.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO (pictured right), said: “Workforce shortages within the veterinary sector has been a concern for some time, however, in the past few months there has been a ‘perfect storm’ of circumstances, which have come together to exacerbate the problem. The issues include the ongoing impact of the pandemic, burnout and fatigue within the profession; the UK’s exit from the European Union, which has seen a significant reduction in the number of EU vets joining the Register as well as an associated increase in the need for veterinary certification; and an increase in pet ownership, and therefore demand for veterinary services, over the course of the pandemic."
In advance of the meeting, which is due to be help in November, the College will be conducting research to better gauge the extent of the problem both nationally and regionally.
The meeting will then consider how recruitment, retention and return to work might address the problem.
Lizzie added: “While there has already been a lot of focus and discussions around recruitment and retention, something less spoken about is return, and the summit will consider the reasons why members of the profession may move away from clinical practice, and if there’s more scope for different ways of working that could bring people back into clinical practice.
“Ahead of the summit we will be reviewing all the latest data that we and other organisations have shared to better understand the gap between capacity and demand, the push and pull factors on decisions to either join or leave clinical practice and build a more evidence-based picture of veterinary workforce trends.”
The summit itself, the date of which is yet to be confirmed, will involve key veterinary stakeholders including the veterinary schools, veterinary employers and representative bodies, coming together to ensure that there will be a joined-up approach in finding solutions to the issues confronting the profession.
Lizzie said: “It may not necessarily be easy to identify all the solutions in one day, and they won’t all come from the RCVS, but opening up the conversation and getting the professions focused on taking appropriate action is an important first step.”
Meanwhile, RCVS President Kate Richards this week wrote to all vets and nurses to reassure them them that the RCVS was aware of the problem and the additional pressures they are under as a result.
In the letter she wrote: “In the face of current shortages, I would like to stress that we support practice teams in prioritising cases strictly according to the health and welfare needs of their patients, and in informing their clients of the need to do so.
“We would also urge veterinary surgeons to share their caseload as much as possible, delegating permitted procedures to their veterinary nurse colleagues wherever appropriate to do so.
"And, we would like to remind veterinary surgeons that their current 24/7 emergency cover obligations, as set out in the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct, are limited only to taking steps to provide 24-hour emergency first-aid and pain relief to animals according to their skills and the specific situation."
She also added that, while members of the profession may be anxious about a potential increase in the number of concerns being raised by clients because they are not able to offer the level of service they would ideally like to, the RCVS would always take into account the entire circumstances surrounding a complaint as part of its investigation process.
She also said that the College would also continue to raise awareness amongst animal owners of the acute challenges currently facing veterinary teams around the country, and to request their ongoing patience and understanding.
To assist the profession, a series of FAQs have been produced to help with different situations that vets may encounter at the moment, particularly around the provision of 24/7 emergency cover, and to provide further guidance on delegating procedures to veterinary nurses. These can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/news/
Mr Beveridge had been removed from the Register following a disciplinary hearing in May 2013 in which he was found guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect with the Committee finding that he had treated clients badly, kept inadequate clinical records, was dishonest in his dealings with the College and that animals in his care were placed at risk. He subsequently appealed to the Privy Council but this was later withdrawn, resulting in him being formally removed from the Register in March 2014.
He first applied to be restored to the Register in 2015 but his application was refused by the Disciplinary Committee at a hearing in November 2015. At the time the Committee found him unfit for restoration to the Register because, following his removal, his veterinary medicines account had been used on an unauthorised basis to order prescription-only veterinary medicines, which reflected a "cavalier attitude to practice". Furthermore, the Committee found that he had not fully accepted the Committee’s original findings, had made inadequate effort in regards to engaging in continuing professional development (CPD) and also considered the seriousness of the original findings.
At the opening of his second hearing Mr Beveridge, who represented himself, sought to address the concerns that the Disciplinary Committee had outlined upon refusing his first application for restoration. Regarding his acceptance of the original findings, the Committee heard that he now apologised "unreservedly for his failings that led to erasure of his name from the Register" and the Committee considered that he had demonstrated a significant change in attitude from the previous restoration hearing where he had not fully accepted the reasons for being removed.
In considering issues of public protection the Committee also accepted that Mr Beveridge, until his original Disciplinary Committee hearing, had an unblemished professional record and had run a successful small animal practice for over 30 years. It considered numerous client testimonials as well as a petition signed by 600 clients from 2013.
The Committee also considered that there was no risk to the future welfare of animals in the event of Mr Beveridge being restored to the Register, noting the testimonials and references to satisfactory care and treatment given by Mr Beveridge to his patients.
Regarding CPD, Mr Beveridge produced evidence before the Committee that he had attended courses run by the North American Veterinary Community (NAVC) and the British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA). The Committee accepted that he had made "considerable progress" in terms of CPD.
In concluding the hearing Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "It is the judgement of the Committee that the conduct which resulted in the applicant’s name being removed from the Register is unlikely to be repeated. The applicant has satisfied the Committee that he is fit to be restored to the Register."
Voting for this year’s election will take place from 15th March until 5pm on Friday 23 April 2021 and the 14 candidates are:
This year, four candidates will be elected to serve a four-year term.
For the first time, the RCVS Council election will be carried out completely online.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for the election, said: “Due to the coronavirus pandemic and the issues that it has caused regarding disruption to the postal service, the RCVS has gained permission from the Privy Council to temporarily amend our Election Scheme, a document that governs how we run our elections, to allow voting to take place entirely online this year. This means that physical ballot papers will not be distributed to veterinary surgeons eligible to vote this year.
“The small number of veterinary surgeons for whom we do not hold an email address will receive a letter with instructions on how to vote online, in addition to their security code to allow them access to their unique voting website. If they need further help there will also be the opportunity for them to call Civica Election Services, which runs the election on our behalf, who will assist them with casting their vote.”
Ahead of the start of the election, the RCVS is also inviting members of the profession to submit one question each for the candidates. The candidates will then be asked to record a short video of themselves answering two of the questions of their choice which will be published when the election starts.
Questions can be submitted by emailing vetvote21@rcvs.org.uk or via the RCVS Twitter account (@theRCVS) using the hashtag #vetvote21.
The full candidate biographies and manifestoes have already been published on the RCVS website and are available to view at: www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote21
Members of the profession have until Wednesday 24 February 2021 to submit their question.
The RCVS has extended the deadline for nominations for the RCVS Queen's Medal to 31 January, to allow time for the nominations paperwork to be completed on return from the Christmas and New Year break.
RCVS CEO Nick Stace said: "We received more enquiries about the Queen's Medal over the Christmas period but appreciated that people might welcome a little extra time in the new year to complete and submit their nominations. We're certainly keen to allow anyone who wishes to make a nomination for this very special award the chance to do so."
The Queen's Medal, launched at the House of Lords last November, is a new Honour that will be awarded to a veterinary surgeon for a lifetime of outstanding contributions to the profession and who has dedicated their career to working above and beyond the call of duty in the fields of veterinary medicine or science, or related areas.
It is the most prestigious Honour that the RCVS can bestow, and will be awarded at RCVS Day in London in July.
Full details about the nominations process are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/Queensmedal). Nominations should be received by the RCVS no later than 5pm on Friday, 31 January 2014.
According to the RCVS, 86% of veterinary surgeons, and 92% of veterinary nurses have so far failed to vote in this year's council elections.
There's still time: voting for the RCVS Council and VN Council doesn't close till 2nd May and 28th April respectively.
Voting can be done online: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=205006, where you can also read each candidate's manifesto.
The Committee had found Dr Elefterescu guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to a number of charges which covered issues such as dishonesty, poor record-keeping, and failure to carry out adequate clinical examinations.
The full charges and findings of the RCVS Disciplinary Committee can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held the appeal hearing in October last year with three Justices of the Supreme Court - Lord Kerr, Lord Carnwath and Lord Kitchin – comprising the Board.
The basis of the appeal to the Privy Council was that the Committee’s findings on the facts of the case were flawed, with his counsel saying that Dr Elefterescu 'strenuously disputes the findings by the Committee of his dishonesty and lack of professional competence and submits that there is no adequate basis for them in the evidence’.
His counsel also told the Board that the Disciplinary Committee’s sanction failed to take into account mitigating factors and that the decision to remove Dr Elefterescu from the Register was disproportionate.
In relation to the appeal against the Disciplinary Committee’s findings on the facts, the Board was not persuaded by any of the arguments put forward on behalf of Dr Elefterescu. These arguments included that the RCVS had failed to call relevant witnesses and had failed to make Dr Elefterescu aware of the significance of some evidential matters, disclosed to him.
In respect of the sanction, the Board was also unpersuaded by the arguments put forward by Dr Elefterescu’s counsel, namely that it was too harsh in its assessment of aggravating factors, did not give adequate weight to mitigating factors, and that it failed to distinguish lack of competence from misconduct.
In its judgment on the arguments put forward by Dr Elefterescu’s counsel, the Board said: "It is the opinion of the Board that these criticisms are not well founded. The Committee considered with care Dr Elefterescu’s proven and admitted conduct in relation to each of the charges and whether it fell below or far below the standard to be expected. It is to be noted in this regard that a number of the charges which were either admitted or upheld were not the subject of any challenge on this appeal.
"Overall, the Committee found that Dr Elefterescu’s clinical failures were very serious, involved failures in the basics of animal care, resulted in animal suffering and involved widespread breaches of the respondent’s [RCVS] code of professional conduct. It also expressed particular concern about its findings of dishonesty, and rightly so. That conduct was, in its view, ‘at the top end’ of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. What is more, Dr Elefterescu had a lack of insight into his failings and a wholly unjustified confidence in his abilities which constituted an ongoing risk to animal welfare."
"These were findings which the Committee was clearly entitled to make and, in the light of them, the Board is firmly of the view that the decision of the Committee to direct the removal of Dr Elefterescu’s name from the Register cannot be impeached. The Board rejects the criticisms made of the Committee’s reasoning and the conclusions to which it came. The direction that Dr Elefterescu’s name must be removed from the Register was appropriate and proportionate."
The Judicial Committee’s full findings can be found at www.jcpc.uk/cases/docs/jcpc-2018-0060-judgment.pdf.
Prior to the start of the hearing, the RCVS received correspondence from Mr Kombert confirming that he did not intend to attend the hearing, either in person or via a video-link, nor did he intend to send legal representation in his stead.
The Committee, chaired by Dr Martin Whiting, decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of Mr Kombert and any legal representation, on the basis that it was in the public interest and the interests of justice to proceed and that Mr Kombert had been given the opportunity to attend or be represented.
The Committee heard that staff at the practice where Mr Kombert was working as a locum had undertaken a check of the medicines kept in the practice’s controlled drugs cabinet and discovered that 5.5ml of ketamine and 1.5ml of methadone was missing. After the code to the controlled drugs cabinet was changed, Mr Kombert was observed taking an additional 3ml of methadone, which he then administered to himself while on duty at the practice.
After Mr Kombert was confronted with the evidence, he was given the details of the Vetlife charity for support and asked not to return to the practice.
The police were contacted and, on 4 January 2019, Mr Kombert was arrested and interviewed. He received a police caution for theft, with conditions that he should attend and complete a drug-use awareness course, and engage in a restorative justice process, which involved attending the practice to discuss his offences. At this meeting, Mr Kombert admitted stealing the drugs and administering them to himself while on duty, which meant he was not in a fit state to see patients. He apologised for his actions and the matter was then also reported to the RCVS.
In relation to the fact that Mr Kombert had accepted the police caution, made the admissions at the restorative justice meeting and had emailed the RCVS apologising for his actions, the facts of the case were found proven.
The Committee then went on to consider if Mr Kombert’s actions amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect (henceforth called ‘serious professional misconduct’), something which Mr Kombert had admitted to in correspondence with the RCVS.
The Committee found that Mr Kombert’s actions did amount to serious professional misconduct. Dr Martin Whiting, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The respondent’s conduct was dishonest; it constituted both a breach of trust and an abuse of his position with regards to access to veterinary medicines; it risked animal welfare and jeopardised the reputation of colleagues. It fell far short of the conduct expected of a member of the profession and amounts to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
The Committee then considered what the appropriate sanction against Mr Kombert should be, taking into account both aggravating and mitigating factors.
In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee took into account the risk of harm to animals, his dishonesty, the premeditated nature of the misconduct, the breach of trust and the fact it was repeated.
It also took into account three previous matters recorded against Mr Kombert in the United States of America.
These were: a letter of admonition from the Colorado State Board of Veterinary Medicine for practising when his licence had expired; a stipulation order from the same body in which he agreed to relinquish his licence in that state following an allegation that he took controlled substances from a veterinary practice and self-administered them; and a criminal conviction in New York State for obtaining an opioid controlled drug by deception, for which he was sentenced to three years’ probation. The Committee was made aware of the New York State criminal conviction after Dianne Norris, a Probation Officer based in that state, had contacted the RCVS after hearing about the inquiry and informed the College that Mr Kombert was in breach of his probation conditions.
Dr Whiting said: “The Committee has considered the witness statement of Ms Dianne Norris, a probation officer employed by Putnam County Probation in New York, who was responsible for supervising the respondent as part of his probation. Ms Norris explained that the respondent breached his probation on numerous occasions, which took place from November 2017 to 2018…. As a result of the breaches, Ms Norris required the respondent to increase his attendance at support groups to an inpatient treatment program for 28 days from 13 July 2018. He failed to attend.
"Ms Norris explained that warrants were issued for the respondent’s arrest…. The Committee noted that the conduct of the respondent in relation to obtaining controlled drugs from his employers for his own use while in the United States of America was similar to his conduct … [described in] the charges."
In mitigation the Committee considered that Mr Kombert had consistently admitted the charges against him as well as accepting and agreeing with the evidence against him.
However, the Committee decided that in light of the seriousness of his misconduct, including dishonesty and risk of serious harm to animals, removal from the Register was the most appropriate and proportionate sanction.
Summing up, Dr Whiting said: "The respondent has failed to uphold the requisite standards to be expected of him on multiple occasions. The Committee considers that the only sanction that is sufficient to protect the welfare of animals, maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct is one of erasure."
Mr Kombert has 28 days from being informed of the outcome of the hearing in which to make an appeal to the Privy Council.
The full facts and findings from the case can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Mr Chalkley faced three charges against him. The first was that he failed to identify some or all of the animals tested with Intradermal Comparative Tuberculin (ICT) tests at the farm.
The second charge was that Mr Chalkley had certified that he had carried out ICT tests on 279 animals at the farm and recorded the results on the accompanying paperwork but had, in fact, not adequately identified some or all of the 279 animals and had fabricated the skin thickness measurements recorded for some of them.
In addition, the charge alleged that Mr Chalkley’s conduct was dishonest, misleading and risked undermining government testing procedures designed to promote public health.
The third charge was that between June 2011 and September 2018, Mr Chalkley received payment of approximately £20,000 for ICT tests when, as a result of his conduct in relation to ICT tests at the farm, he was not entitled to such payment.
At the outset of the hearing Mr Chalkley admitted the first charge, that he had not adequately identified some of the animals.
On the third day of the hearing, during his evidence to the Committee, he admitted that his certification of the ICT testing was therefore misleading.
He denied the rest of the charges including that his conduct had been dishonest and that it had risked undermining government testing procedures designed to promote public health.
In considering the charges against Mr Chalkley, the Committee heard that discrepancies regarding the tests that were carried out on the farm in March 2018 were originally raised by the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA), on whose behalf Mr Chalkley carried out ICT testing in his capacity as an Official Veterinarian.
When Mr Chalkley gave evidence during the hearing, he explained that he had taken over TB testing for the farm in 2008 and that working conditions on the farm had been difficult throughout the whole period 2008 to 2018. He stated that due to the harsh weather conditions of early 2018, TB testing was difficult, and that the farmer needed to complete the test by March 2018 to avoid a financial penalty.
Mr Chalkley explained that one of the reasons for there being limited time available for him to carry out the test within the time required by the farmer was that he was due to provide veterinary cover at the Cheltenham races the following week and he was unable to find anyone else to cover the tests. Mr Chalkley also explained that during the tests on 5 and 8 March there had been limited farmhands available to assist in processing the cattle through the tests.
In the course of being asked questions by counsel for the RCVS, Mr Chalkley accepted that he had failed to identify some 45% of the animals he had injected on 5 March 2018 and had, in respect of each of the skin thickness measurements for those animals, randomly chosen a figure that he believed would be appropriate based on the breed, age and sex of the animal.
The APHA guidelines state that specific measurements should be made and recorded for each individual animal using callipers. Mr Chalkley said that he could not remember seeing the “pop-up” declaration which appeared when submitting the results to the APHA online and had never read it. He stated that he was not aware that he was making a declaration. However, he accepted that as an Official Veterinarian he was confirming that he had carried out the test properly. While he agreed that he knew that the test contained inaccuracies, he did not accept that he was being dishonest when he submitted the results.
Having considered all the evidence put forward by the RCVS and Mr Chalkley in his own defence, the Committee found that Mr Chalkley had acted dishonestly in deliberately choosing not to take the measurements on 5 March and had instead submitted fabricated alternatives, and so risked undermining public health by failing to carry out his duties as an OV.
The Committee also concluded that Mr Chalkley had been acting dishonestly, as he knew that he was submitting the test results as if they were the authentic outcome of a properly conducted test when in reality, they were no such thing.
The Committee did not accept Mr Chalkley’s evidence that he was unaware of the declaration which accompanied the submission of the test outcome. The Committee therefore found both the first and second charges proved.
In respect of the third charge the Committee found that this was not proven noting that the RCVS had not disproved Mr Chalkley’s explanation regarding his reasons for returning the £20,000 in fees he had received for carrying out TB testing at the farm from the APHA since 2011.
The Committee then considered whether the first two charges, both of which had been found proven, amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Ian Arundale, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was prepared to accept that the respondent considered the risk arising from his actions as negligible. Nonetheless, in the Committee’s assessment a real risk existed due to the respondent’s actions and it was precisely the risk which the authorised testing procedure was designed to negate. The simple fact is the respondent could not be sure that each animal he assessed on 8 March 2018 had also been seen by him on 5 March 2018.
“However, the wider point with which the Committee was concerned related to the importance of any member of the profession or public being able to rely absolutely on the integrity of veterinary certification. Those parts of the Code and supporting guidance [concerning certification]… were unequivocal. It was very difficult to conceive of circumstances in which it could ever be justifiable to certify the outcome of a test which had not, in fact, been conducted in a way which was demonstrably valid and reliable. Such conduct was bound to be regarded as disgraceful by members of the profession and the general public.
“Honesty is the bedrock of appropriate certification and the Code and Guidance for the Disciplinary Committee is also unequivocal. Dishonesty in professional practice is always an extremely serious matter and the respondent’s responsibilities in the discharge of his functions as an Official Veterinarian were clear. On this occasion those responsibilities had been compromised.
“For these reasons, the Committee has come to the conclusion that the respondent’s conduct in relation to the facts found proved was disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
The Committee then went on to consider the sanction for Mr Chalkley.
The Committee heard oral evidence in mitigation, including from a former colleague who had worked with him in practice since 2006, as well as receiving a large number of written testimonials from various sources that attested to his honesty, integrity, willingness to help others, and charitable work in support of animal welfare.
Mr Chalkley’s counsel, in mitigation, highlighted his long and previously unblemished career, and characterised the conduct as an inexcusable but explicable error of judgement that was entirely isolated and out-of-character. Mr Chalkley’s counsel added that he had not done anything that he thought was seriously wrong, and there was no evidence that any harm had been done and that any risk to public health was not serious.
The Committee accepted that the conduct was isolated and out-of-character and that, furthermore, Mr Chalkley had made early and frank admissions to the APHA and that he had displayed a degree of insight, although the Committee was less confident that he truly understood the seriousness of the potential consequences of his dishonest conduct.
The Committee took into account the aggravating factors, including Mr Chalkley’s breach of trust of his position as an OV, the undermining of the integrity of veterinary certification, dishonesty and the potential public health impacts of his conduct.
Ian Arundale added: “The Committee considered that, having regard to the mitigating features which it had identified, a suspension order would be sufficient to send to the profession and the public a clear signal about the importance to be attached to accurate certification. The Committee considered that in the particular circumstances of this case, a period of three months suspension would be sufficient to achieve this objective.”
The full findings for the case can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Ian Arundale (pictured right) was appointed as the new Chair of the DC following an application process from within existing Disciplinary Committee members, with the final interview panel consisting of Amanda Boag (President at the time), Ian Green (current DC Chair) and Miran Uddin (an independent barrister who works in regulatory law). Ian begins his role as chair in late October.
Ian is Deputy Chief Constable of Cleveland Police in the north east of England and was a police officer for 32 years serving in South Wales, West Mercia and Dyfed-Powys Police Forces. He currently provides expert witness services to inquests, courts and public inquiries. Ian has worked internationally and has assisted police forces and organisations in the USA, India, the Far East and New Zealand. In addition to his work with the RCVS, Ian is also the Chairperson of the Audit Committee for the City of Cardiff Council and is a board member of the International Law Enforcement Forum (ILEF).
Ian said: "I am pleased to have been selected as DC Chair and am looking forward to chairing the committee. The role of the DC is crucial to ensuring the RCVS protects and upholds the high standards of the UK veterinary professions, and I am humbled to be in a position to support this important function."
Dr Martin Whiting has been appointed as the new Vice Chair for the DC. Dr Whiting qualified as a veterinary surgeon from the Royal Veterinary College (RVC) in 2006. Following a few years in practice, he returned to academia to complete a Masters in Medical Law and Ethics and a PhD in the public interest in veterinary professional regulation. Martin was appointed as Lecturer in Veterinary Ethics and Law at the RVC in 2013 and became an RCVS and European Specialist in Animal Welfare, Ethics and Law. In 2017, Martin moved to the Home Office to work with the Animals in Science Committee and is currently the Head of Operations for the Animals in Science Regulation Unit.
Dr Bradley Viner has been appointed as the new Chair of the RCVS PIC and began his role on 1 July 2019.
Bradley was appointed through an independent selection process led by an external HR consultancy, with RCVS Council ratifying the final appointments. Bradley replaces Andrew Ash, who chaired the PIC from July 2015 up until Bradley’s appointment.
Bradley established his own small animal practice in Pinner, Middlesex, which then grew to a group of five practices in north-west London. In 2017 he sold his practices to the Linnaeus Group and now works for them as Group Clinical Quality Lead across all their sites. He was made a Fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons in 2017 for Meritorious Contributions to Clinical Practice. Bradley was an elected member of RCVS Council between 2005 and 2017, including four years as RCVS Treasurer and one year as RCVS President in 2015-16.
Bradley said: "I was delighted to have been selected as Chair of this Statutory Committee as I feel it is one of the most important interfaces between the College, the profession and the public. It has a vital role to play in protecting animal welfare and the reputation of the profession, but I am well aware that fear of disciplinary proceedings can be very stressful to those involved. I undertake to continually strive to work to find a balance that ensures the Committee maintains a well-regulated profession acting in the public interest but also makes every effort to avoid causing unnecessary stress on members that are subject to its proceedings."
More information about the RCVS concerns investigation and disciplinary processes can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns.
The Horse Trust provides a range of services to support working horses, while Medical Detection Dogs trains dogs to alert their owners to cancers and other medical conditions, providing pre-emptive non-invasive warning.
Stephen said: "These two charities' work in strengthening and supporting the human-animal bond is truly remarkable. Though The Horse Trust was originally founded in 1886 as a retirement home for working horses, and this remains a core focus of theirs to this day, it has now evolved to provide a whole range of services, from education to research to rescuing neglected equids.
"Medical Detection Dogs, though founded much more recently in 2008, has already done an incredible amount in its short history - 76 of its dogs are now partnered with people with critical medical conditions, ensuring essential emotional as well as medical support."
Jeanette Allen, CEO of The Horse Trust, said: "The Horse Trust is extremely grateful to the RCVS for this enormously generous donation. We care for 130 horses, ponies and donkeys that have either retired from public service or been rescued from appalling conditions. We also provide dedicated training programmes for first responders who have to deal with horses in crisis situations, as well as being the second largest funder of equine specific veterinary research in the UK. We survive as a charity on donations, and this one is most welcome and greatly appreciated."
Claire Guest, co-founder and chief executive of Medical Detection Dogs, said: "We are so grateful to the RCVS for their very generous donation. We receive no government funding for our work, so we rely entirely on the generosity of organisations like the RCVS. Thanks to this donation, we can continue our pioneering research into the detection of human disease using the extraordinary smelling power of dogs."
The President’s Christmas Box donation is made every year in lieu of sending out RCVS Christmas cards. Previous recipients have included Worldwide Veterinary Service, Mind, Riding for the Disabled Association, Canine Partners, Hounds for Heroes, and Vetlife.
Vet Futures, the joint initiative by the RCVS and BVA to stimulate debate about the future of the profession, has opened a new discussion exploring the issue of mental health problems.
The discussion has been opened by this month's Vet Futures guest blogger, Rosie Allister, Chair of the Vet Helpline and a Director of the Veterinary Benevolent Fund.
Rosie, who is also a researcher at the University of Edinburgh specialising in veterinary wellbeing, writes that members of the profession should be more willing to open up about their own mental health problems and intervene by talking and listening to colleagues who may be suffering from mental ill-health. She said: "Looking to the future, we need to better understand who is most at risk, how to reach out to them, and how we can start to change our culture so that it is OK to ask for help."
Her blog also proposes that, due to the caring nature of the occupation and high client expectations, members of the profession routinely put work and animal welfare ahead of their own needs and that, in order for there to be wider cultural change, individuals need to change their own attitudes towards asking for help. This includes the discussion of 'taboo subjects' such as suicide: "Perhaps all of us have to start trying to change our culture to one that is more accepting and supportive and looks out for those in need even when they aren't able to reach out themselves."
As part of the discussion, Vet Futures is running a poll which asks: "Could you recognise the signs of mental ill-health in a colleague?"
To read Rosie's blog and take part in the poll, visit and take part in the poll, visit: http://goo.gl/EmLhhF
At the same time as paying the fee, all veterinary surgeons must annually confirm their Register and correspondence details, declare any convictions, cautions or adverse findings and confirm they are compliant with RCVS continuing professional development (CPD) policy.
The deadline for completing the annual renewal, 1 April 2019, has now passed and all veterinary surgeons who are yet to pay their fees must do so before the end of May 2019. As of 1 June 2019, any non-payers will be removed from the Register.
If paid by 30 April 2019, the annual fee is £340 for UK-practising veterinary surgeons, £170 for veterinary surgeons practising outside the UK, and £56 for non-practising veterinary surgeons. Following this date, the fee goes up by £35 across all these groups and veterinary surgeons will have until 31 May 2019 to pay.
If the renewal fee is not received in full by 31 May 2019, then non-paying veterinary surgeons will be removed from the Register. In order to restore their name to the Register, a restoration fee of £340 will need to be paid, in addition to the appropriate retention fee. During this time they will not be able to use the postnominals MRCVS and UK-practising vets will need to cease practising.
Annual renewals can be completed online on the RCVS website and all the information needed to complete the annual renewal is in the renewal notice that has been sent to veterinary surgeons. Those who need any help or have any questions about completing their renewal and paying fees should contact the RCVS Registration Department on 020 7202 0707 or registration@rcvs.org.uk.
Mrs Cole pleaded guilty to fraud in July 2024 at Crawley Magistrates’ Court and was sentenced to eight months in prison suspended for 12 months, 20 days rehabilitation activity and a £187 victim surcharge.
The College opened its own disciplinary investigation against Mrs Cole after receiving the certificate of conviction, which related to more than £13,000 of pet insurance fraud.
It then proceeded with the hearing in Mrs Cole’s absence as she had not responded to any of the communications sent to her by the College on the matter.
Having found the charge against her proven by the certificate of conviction, the Committee then determined that the conviction amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Dr Kathryn Peaty MRCVS, chairing the committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The respondent’s conduct… was plainly dishonest and contravened a fundamental tenet of the profession.
"She abused her professional position in order to commit the offence.
"The dishonest conduct in this case related directly to the respondent’s professional life, as she was working as a veterinary nurse when she completed and submitted the fraudulent claims.
“Her conduct also constituted a breach of the trust owed to her employer and to the insurance company to which her dishonest claims were submitted.
"She put her professional colleagues at risk as their names were used on the clinical records which purportedly supported her dishonest claims.
“Her misconduct was repeated and sustained over a period of many years.
"Her modus operandi was sophisticated and premeditated.
“The respondent’s conduct clearly had the potential to bring the profession into disrepute and to undermine public trust in the profession.
"A member of the public would be rightly appalled to learn that a veterinary nurse had abused her position by submitting false claims in this way.”
The Committee found that there were no mitigating factors, and that aggravating factors included the premeditated nature of Mrs Cole’s fraud, the clear breaches of trust in respect of her colleagues, her clients and the insurance companies, the significant financial gain made from her fraud and the fact that the fraudulent activities were sustained and repeated over a period of four and a half years.
Kathryn added: “Taking into account the gravity of her misconduct, the need to maintain standards of probity in the profession, especially in relation to practice records and the submission of insurance claim documents, as well as the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, the Committee has resolved to direct the Registrar to remove the respondent’s name from the Register.
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
In total Mr Hendrie Smith had faced eight charges against him, all of which related to him undertaking the euthanasia of a German Shepherd named Bouncer during a home visit in January 2017.
The charges alleged that when John Hendrie Smith undertook the euthanasia of Bouncer he had:
1. failed to ensure he was sufficiently prepared for the euthanasia in that he failed to attend the visit with a muzzle and failed to attend with any sedative and the means of administering sedative;
2. failed to delay the euthanasia until he was in possession of the above items;
3. undertook the euthanasia by means of an injection without first sedating Bouncer;
4. failed to provide Bouncer’s owner with an adequate explanation of the procedure. Including:
a. failing to explain that the procedure involved an attempt at injection directly into the heart;
b. failing to explain that an injection into the heart without sedation is (except in extreme circumstances) not an accepted means of euthanasia;
c. wrongly stated that Bouncer would not feel the injection;
d. failed to provide an explanation of the risks;
e. failed to explain the risks and signs of narcotic excitement;
f. failed to explain the risks of injection into the heart without sedation;
5. failed to obtain Bouncer’s owner’s informed consent for the procedure;
6. failed to make any clinical records in respect of the procedure;
7. provided inadequate veterinary care to Bouncer and caused him unnecessary suffering; and
8. failed to communicate with Bouncer’s owner.
Having considered evidence about the case from Bouncer’s owner, his owner’s former partner, two expert witnesses and Mr Hendrie Smith, the Committee found all of the charges against Mr Hendrie Smith proven, with the exception of charge 4(e) on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence against him on this particular charge.
In considering whether the charges that were found proven amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee heard further evidence from the College’s two expert witnesses, and submissions from both the College and Mr Hendrie Smith. Having considered the evidence and submissions, the Committee concluded that in relation to each of the charges found proven, Mr Hendrie Smith’s conduct had fallen far below that which was to be expected from a veterinary surgeon and was therefore serious professional misconduct.
The Committee went on to consider what sanction was appropriate following its earlier findings against Mr Hendrie Smith. The Committee took into account a number of mitigating and aggravating factors. In mitigation the Committee considered that this was a single, isolated incident and that Mr Hendrie Smith had been a practising veterinary surgeon for 65 years and had an otherwise unblemished career with no adverse professional findings against him. It also took into account testimonials from professional colleagues, clients and his local community.
However, the Committee also considered the aggravating factors which included actual injury and unnecessary suffering to an animal, a blatant disregard of the systems that regulate the veterinary profession including the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance relating to euthanasia, informed consent, preventing unnecessary suffering and working within one’s area of competence.
In explaining its decision to direct his removal from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons, the Committee noted Mr Hendrie Smith’s lack of insight into his behaviour, which included denying that he was at fault, challenging several of the Committee’s findings and disputing that an intracardiac injection into the heart of a dog without administering sedation or anaesthesia was wholly unacceptable, despite expert opinion to the contrary.
Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The respondent, in his oral evidence, admitted that he was not really a small animal vet, and had not been dealing regularly with small animals for a significant period of time. His specialisation in recent years was with large farm animals. The Committee considered that the respondent had, and still has, no concept of the difficulties now recognised as inherent in the procedure he performed, or the risks of pain and suffering it posed to the animal."
She added: "The Committee has found that the respondent’s conduct in attempting an intracardiac injection without prior sedation or anaesthesia caused appalling pain and suffering to Bouncer, as evidenced by his screaming, and was wholly unnecessary. The respondent accepted that he had a sedative in his car, but chose not to postpone attempted euthanasia so that he could sedate his patient first.
"The respondent explained in his oral evidence that he had, in the past, euthanased over 200 dogs by intracardiac injection without sedation or anaesthesia. The Committee concludes that this was the respondent’s customary method of euthanasia, and he did not understand why it was wholly unacceptable for a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon to carry out euthanasia in this way. Given his lack of insight, the Committee considers that there is a risk that, if the respondent were to be asked to euthanase a dog in the future, he would be likely to use his customary method, and thereby cause injury and suffering to another animal."
In determining the sanction the Committee decided that, because there had been a serious departure from the professional standards set out in the Code, serious harm was caused and there was a serious risk of harm to animals in the future, that removing Mr Hendrie Smith from the Register was the only means of protecting animals and the wider public interest.
Mr Hendrie Smith has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to make an appeal to the Privy Council.
The Disciplinary Committee heard three charges against Dr Jones.
The first and second charges were that, in March 2018, Dr Jones made signed entries in the passports and made corresponding entries in clinical records of four horses indicating that he had administered an influenza vaccination booster to each horse on 15 March 2018 and in relation to another horse a tetanus booster, when in fact he had administered the vaccination boosters on 21 March 2018, and that his conduct was misleading, dishonest and undermined the integrity of a vaccination process designed to promote animal welfare.
The third charge was that, on or around 21 March 2018, Dr Jones failed to make any entries in the clinical records for a horse in relation to an examination on 21 March 2018.
At the outset of the hearing Dr Jones admitted the facts in the first and second charges, and accepted that his actions were misleading, dishonest and that they undermined the integrity of a vaccination process. However, he disputed certain aspects of the written statements of the College’s witnesses. In particular he wanted his conduct to be taken in the context of the pressures that he was working under on that day, primarily that he was in a stressed state having had to euthanase a valuable stallion at the conclusion of his previous client appointment.
Dr Jones did not admit the third charge, explaining that he did not remember examining the horse on 21 March 2018 as alleged.
Based on Dr Jones' own admissions, the Committee found the first and second charges proven.
Regarding the third charge, the Committee heard evidence from the horse’s owner who said they were present during the examination taking place and the Committee was satisfied that the respondent did examine the horse on 21 March 2018 and that he had a duty to make a brief clinical note on the examination. As Dr Jones admitted that he made no such note, the Committee found the charge to have been proven to the requisite standard.
Having found the charges proven, the Committee then went on to consider whether or not Dr Jones’ proven conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct. The Committee, having considered the aggravating and mitigating factors, found that Dr Jones’ conduct as found proved in relation to both charges one and two, did constitute serious professional misconduct.
However, with regards to charge three, the Committee accepted that the respondent simply forgot that he had examined the horse and, therefore, the Committee was not satisfied that the failure to compile a record entry covering the horse’s examination constituted serious professional misconduct.
The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Dr Jones in relation to the facts found proven in charges one and two. In doing so it took into account the 78 written testimonials and 4 character witnesses called on behalf of Dr Jones.
Ian Green, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: "The Committee’s decision on sanction has been based on an acceptance that the respondent’s conduct on this occasion was out-of-character, as the evidence of his character witnesses and the contents of the letters submitted in his support by his clients and other veterinary colleagues assert. The Committee also accepts that the respondent self-reported himself to his employer and to the College and has made a full and frank admission of his wrongdoing.
"Consideration was given to whether the sanction of a reprimand and/or warning as to future conduct would adequately reflect the gravity of the misconduct, however, after careful reflection it was concluded that such a sanction could not be justified. The reason is that acts of falsification involve acts of dishonesty by a professional person acting in a professional capacity, and the gravity of the matter arises not simply from the dishonesty but also from the possible consequences of the false certification. It should be clearly understood by members of the veterinary profession that, in appropriate false certification cases, the sanction of removal from the Register is one which may well be imposed."
The Committee therefore decided that suspending Dr Jones from the Register for two months would be the most appropriate sanction.
Voting in this year's RCVS and VN Councils elections has now opened, with veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses able to cast their votes online, by post or by text message.
All candidate details and ballot papers have been posted earlier this week so should be landing on doormats imminently.
As in previous years, there is an opportunity for voters to quiz the candidates on VetSurgeon.org and VetNurse.co.uk. Questions submitted before 24th March will be entered into a draw to win one of three 6-bottle mixed cases of wine. Thereafter, there will be an open forum on both sites.
As in previous years, the College will make an optional 20p charitable donation to the Veterinary Benevolent Fund on behalf of each person who votes.
Lydia Brown, President of the VBF, said: "The Veterinary Benevolent Fund is very grateful for funds raised through the elections. We appreciate that life in practice can be stressful, and offer support in a variety of ways to veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses."
RCVS Council comprises 40 members: four are appointed by the Privy Council, 12 by the veterinary schools and 24 by direct election.
Each member is appointed for a four-year term of office. Every year, six members of Council retire at the Annual General Meeting, though may seek re-election.
In 2011, ten candidates are standing for the six seats available, including six incumbent Council members. The candidates are:
RCVS VN Council comprises 17 members: eight elected veterinary nurses, six veterinary surgeon members (including three from RCVS Council), one Lantra representative and two lay members.
Two seats are usually available each year, with each member serving a four-year term.
This year an extra seat for a one-year term is available, due to a member retiring mid-term; this will be filled by the third-placed candidate.
There are four candidates for the three seats:
All votes must be received before 5pm on 27 April 2011 - a slightly earlier deadline than usual, which takes account of the extra public holiday for the Royal Wedding.
Any veterinary surgeon who has not received their ballot paper should contact Ian Holloway (020 7202 0727 i.holloway@rcvs.org.uk) for an official duplicate; veterinary nurses missing their ballot papers should contact Annette Amato (020 7202 0713 a.amato@rcvs.org.uk).
The updated guidance follows a public campaign known as ‘Tuk’s Law’, which was started after a healthy dog by that name was euthanased despite its microchip being dually registered with a rehoming centre as a 'rescue backup'.
In response, the RCVS and the BVA agreed that more should be done to prevent occasions where a dog might be needlessly put to sleep, but voiced concerns that a legislative approach could undermine a vet’s clinical judgement, unfairly involve veterinary surgeons in ownership disputes or potential criminality, and leave vets unfairly exposed to financial sanctions.
In consultation with Defra, the RCVS and BVA therefore jointly agreed to strengthen the Code of Professional Conduct as follows:
Chapter 8 (para 8.9)
There may be circumstances where a request is made by a client for the destruction of a dog, where in the clinical/professional judgement of the veterinary surgeon destruction of the dog is not necessary, for instance where there are no health or welfare reasons for the dog to be euthanised.
In these circumstances, before carrying out the request for euthanasia the veterinary surgeon should scan the dog for a microchip and check the relevant database if a microchip is found.
Chapter (paras 29.25 -29.27)
Clients may have a contract with the shelter from which they acquired the dog such that it can be returned to that shelter, and that it may be appropriate to discuss this with them prior to euthanasia. Alternatively, there may be another individual willing to take responsibility for the dog (who may be named on the microchip database), and this may also be discussed with the client.
The updated guidance supports existing best practice in terms of discussing alternatives to euthanasia with clients, and give vets flexibility where, in their professional judgment, scanning is not appropriate; this might be if scanning would itself cause a welfare problem, or where a vulnerable client might be involved.
The RCVS Standards Committee says it recognised the difficulties experienced by veterinary surgeons in dealing with the current microchip database system, but felt that introducing these provisions into the guidance was a more proportionate response than the alternative of legislation with substantial fines.
BVA Senior Vice President Dr Daniella Dos Santos MRCVS said: “One of the most important jobs as a vet is having those difficult conversations with clients about euthanasia where we talk through all the options that are in the animal’s best interests. But where the vet doesn’t consider that euthanasia is necessary, the new guidance clearly sets out the steps we need to take. We support this constructive approach that addresses the campaigners’ concerns without undermining veterinary judgement.”
The RCVS is reminding veterinary surgeons that their renewal fees to remain on the Register for 2014/15 are now due.
Registration renewal forms have been sent to all vets reminding them that payment to remain on the Register is due by 31 March 2014. If the College does not receive payment before 1 April, £35 will be added to the renewal fee and any vets who have still not paid before 1 June will be removed from the Register.
This year the RCVS has updated its online 'My Account' area (www.rcvs.org.uk/login) to allow vets to manage their details and pay their renewal fees more quickly and easily. Login details have been sent to all vets and the system is now operational. The changes to the area are the first phase of a project to make it more accessible and user-friendly and to allow vets to better manage their details online.
As part of the renewal process, vets are asked to confirm that their details on the Register are correct, including membership category and correspondence details. Those who are in the 'UK Practising' or 'Practising outside the UK' membership categories should also confirm - via the registration renewal form or the online 'My Account' area - that they are compliant with the requirements for continuing professional development (CPD) of 105 hours over three years. Vets with any cautions, convictions or adverse findings against them dating from 1 January 2006 onwards, should also declare them. For further details on these declarations vets should visit www.rcvs.org.uk/convictions.
Fees can be paid by credit card through the 'My Account' area or by cheque, bank draft or credit card via the registration renewal form sent in the post. Details of how to pay by bank transfer are also on the form.
Vets who have any concerns or questions about renewing their registration, logging in to 'My Account' or who need to request a registration renewal form, can contact the Registration Department on 020 7202 0707 or email membership@rcvs.org.uk.
The College says that 1CPD has been designed to facilitate the new outcomes-focused CPD model which was introduced in 2020 and becomes mandatory from 2022.
An important part of this new model is reflection, so 1CPD encourages vets to reflect on the quality, relevance and impact of their CPD activities.
Dr Linda Prescott-Clements, RCVS Director of Education said: "Although the outcomes-focused element of these changes won’t become mandatory until January 2022, we recommend that you incorporate reflection in your cycle of planning, doing and recording CPD as soon as possible, and our new 1CPD app makes this much easier to do than before.
"Research has found that reflection enhances the quality, impact and relevance of CPD as professionals consider what they have learned, how they will apply their learning and how it will improve their practice. To support this CPD model, which research has shown has a positive impact on both professionalism and patient outcomes, the 1CPD platform facilitates reflection by allowing you to record your reflective notes on your recorded CPD activities, through a variety of means including text, audio or uploading a document."
The old PDR was taken offline last Friday and all of the data saved in the PDR has been transferred to 1CPD.
The 1CPD app is now available for both Apple and Android devices, available on and off line, and through a new dedicated website, all of which is now accessible using the same credentials used to access My Account.
Richard Burley, RCVS Chief Technology Officer, said: "1CPD provides a range of enhancements to RCVS’ previous offerings in this space and represents an important step forward in the College’s digital approach. Built on the latest best-practice technologies, it improves on every aspect of our previous approach to CPD support, delivering the first stage of a new, integrated, career-long CPD support capability for members.”
The launch of 1CPD also coincides with a change to the way that the College assesses CPD compliance, moving to an annual CPD requirement of 35 hours a year for veterinary surgeons and 15 hours a year for veterinary nurses.
More information on the CPD changes, along with accompanying resources, can be found on the RCVS website: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/cpd2020.
So that practices can make sure everyone in their team is aware of the changes, the RCVS has also produced a poster which can be downloaded at: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/publications/cpd-poster/.
For more information, contact the Education team on 0203 795 5595. For technical advice about 1CPD, email the RCVS at onecpd@rcvs.org.uk.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded and warned as to his future conduct a Hampshire veterinary surgeon found guilty of serious professional misconduct for cumulative failures to provide adequate professional care, and insufficient regard for animal welfare whilst treating a dog that had ingested broken glass.
The sanction was decided following a 12-month postponement of a decision ordered at a hearing on 19 November 2010.
At last week's hearing, the Committee was asked to decide what sanction would be appropriate in the case of Peter Ardle MacMahon for his treatment of a Cocker Spaniel called Wilfred, while working as a locum in Portsmouth. In 2010, the Committee found that Mr MacMahon had not removed the ingested glass from Wilfred's stomach or adequately checked that he had done so; had inadequately prevented abdominal contamination; and, had failed to communicate this contamination problem to Wilfred's usual veterinary surgeon. Considering these charges cumulatively, the Committee found that the treatment Mr MacMahon provided to Wilfred had fallen far short of the standard to be expected in the profession and amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Shortly prior to treating Wilfred, Mr MacMahon had returned to practice after a ten-year absence and, at last year's hearing, agreed to comply with undertakings regarding his professional development. These included performing at least 70 hours of medical and surgical continuing professional development (CPD); providing the Disciplinary Committee Chairman with quarterly CPD reports and two employer reports regarding his competence; observing 24 days of current practice by shadowing another veterinary surgeon; and, providing reports from this veterinary surgeon as to his competence and a case diary.
The Committee considered the factual findings from the November 2010 hearing and the concerns then expressed about Mr MacMahon's conduct and capabilities as a veterinary surgeon, as well as his compliance with the agreed undertakings. As advised by the Legal Assessor, the Committee's considerations of sanction began at the lowest level that would ensure that the welfare of animals was properly protected; that proper standards would be maintained among practitioners in the profession; and, that would be in the interests of the public.
Speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, Chairman Professor Peter Lees said: "The Committee is satisfied that the respondent had complied fully with the spirit of the requirements of the undertakings he had entered into on 18 November 2010. Indeed, the view is that the respondent has done well to achieve the level of compliance that he has, given that he had suffered a period of significant ill-health during the period since he entered into those undertakings.
"The ultimate decision is that the respondent's conduct [...] warrants the imposition of at least a reprimand," he continued. "However, it is also the Committee's firm view that the respondent must be warned about his future conduct so that he will know the Committee considers he needs to maintain the level of continuous professional development that he has achieved [over the last] 12 months, and to have constantly in mind the paramount obligation of all veterinary surgeons to ensure the welfare of animals under their care.
"Such a warning as to future conduct should, and the Committee believes that it will, serve as a constant reminder to the respondent that he must undertake only those procedures, and only proffer professional advice, in the areas where he has the requisite up-to-date skills, knowledge and experience."
The Committee reprimanded Mr MacMahon and warned him as to his future conduct.
The RCVS is now accepting applications from veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who wish to serve as members of the RCVS Ethics Review Panel (ERP).
The ERP has been established by the RCVS in order to facilitate access to ethical review for those wishing to undertake practice-based research outside of a university or industry context. The ERP will begin considering research proposals from veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses from 1 August 2016 and the trial will run for a period of one year. The process will be limited to considering research projects involving cats and/or dogs during the trial period, with the possibility of expanding to other species if the trial is extended or made permanent.
The trial came about following a joint working party established by the RCVS and British Veterinary Association which reported on ethical review and found that an increasing amount of clinical research was being conducted by vets based in private practice. One of the key recommendations of the report was that the RCVS should consider establishing a committee for ethical review of practice-based research.
Ahead of the launch of the ERP, the RCVS is currently looking to recruit four veterinary surgeon members and a veterinary nurse member to the Panel to join a lay member and ethicist Chair.
More details about the roles, the function of the ERP and how to apply can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/workforus and www.rcvs.org.uk/ethics. Those who are interested in applying can also email ethics@rcvs.org.uk for an informal discussion. The closing date for applications is 15 April 2016.
Belfast-based Des Thompson MRCVS was presented with the first ever RCVS Queen's Medal by Her Majesty at Buckingham Palace this afternoon.
Des, pictured right showing off the new medal with his wife Rosalie, received two separate nominations for the medal, both citing his decades of active involvement in veterinary politics which includes being president of the RCVS, the British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA), the Society of Practising Veterinary Surgeons (SPVS) and the Northern Ireland Veterinary Association, among other organisations.
Also cited was his willingness to help other members of the profession, particularly young vets at the beginning of their careers, through his involvement with organisations such as the Young Vet Network in Northern Ireland and the Veterinary Benevolent Fund.
The Queen's Medal was launched in 2013, with the approval of Her Majesty as Patron of the RCVS, and is now the highest award that can be bestowed upon a veterinary surgeon in recognition of a particularly outstanding contribution to the profession. In receiving the medal, Des was joined by Professor Stuart Reid, current RCVS President, Colonel Neil Smith, immediate past President, and Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar.
Des said: "It was a complete honour and a wonderful experience to be received by Her Majesty at Buckingham Palace today, and I'm thrilled to have been awarded the RCVS Queen's Medal. Her Majesty was interested to hear about Northern Ireland, and the fact that I've been practising there since I qualified."
The Disciplinary Committee, chaired by Dr Martin Whiting, considered two charges against Mr Shah.
The first charge alleged that in June 2018 Mr Shah allowed a kitten to be anaesthetised for a castration without having first undertaken a clinical examination.
Then, having failed to locate a second testicle during the surgery, it was alleged that Mr Shah failed to contact the owner to inform her of this failure and to discuss the treatment options arising as a result, before ending his attempts at the castration.
The charge then alleged that Mr Shah failed to devise an adequate plan for the completion of the castration, failed to take adequate steps to ensure that the owner was fully informed of the details of the surgery, and failed to make adequate clinical notes in relation to the kitten.
The second charge alleged that, in relation to the conduct in charge one, Mr Shah failed to have adequate regard to previous advice and warnings from the RCVS about his conduct in relation to neutering surgery and related clinical note-keeping and communication with clients.
In particular, this related to a reprimand issued in September 2016 by the Disciplinary Committee following its finding of disgraceful conduct with regards to his discharge of a dog following castration in 2014, and advice issued to Mr Shah by letter of 21 March 2018 by the College’s Preliminary Investigation Committee with regards to circumstances surrounding canine spay surgery performed by him in 2016.
At the outset of the hearing Mr Shah denied all of the charges.
Nevertheless, the Committee found the following charge one sub-charges proved: that Mr Shah allowed the kitten to be anaesthetised without having first undertaken a clinical examination of the kitten and/or ensuring that they had undergone a clinical examination by another veterinary surgeon; that Mr Shah failed to devise an adequate plan for the completion of the castration, that he failed to take adequate steps to ensure that the owner was fully informed post-operatively of the details of the said surgery; and that he failed to make adequate clinical notes in relation to the findings of his examination under anaesthesia, his surgical approach, post-operative communication with the owners and his plan for completion of the castration.
The Committee also found all of charge two proved.
The Committee then went on to consider whether or not, in relation to the proved charges, Mr Shah’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In considering the aggravating factors, the Committee took into account the risk of injury to an animal, the contravention of previous advice given by the College, lack of insight, and the previous adverse findings of the Disciplinary Committee and the Preliminary Investigation Committee.
With regards to mitigating factors, the Committee accepted that the conduct was not premeditated, that there was no financial gain and that, notwithstanding the contents of charge two, the first charge was a single and isolated incident.
Considering both the aggravating and mitigating factors, the Committee was satisfied that Mr Shah’s conduct fell far below the standard expected of a registered veterinary surgeon and consequently that it amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Mr Shah. The Committee first considered lesser sanctions, including postponement with undertakings and a reprimand and warning. Neither would be sufficient to protect animals and the wider public interest and uphold proper standards because Mr Shah had already been given a reprimand and warning in 2016, which appeared, to the Committee, to have had no effect.
Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Dr Whiting said: "It is clear to the Committee that in this case, the respondent has failed to demonstrate any insight into the seriousness of his misconduct.
"In this case, the Committee considers that there is evidence of a harmful deep-seated personal attitude problem so far as the respondent is concerned. His pervasive denial of wrongdoing and lack of insight, in spite of the findings of this Committee, is of grave concern.
"The respondent’s persistent abdication of personal responsibility and accountability for anything that went wrong, coupled with his sustained blaming of the nursing staff with whom he worked, displays an attitude which is fundamentally incompatible with being a member of the veterinary profession.
"The Committee cannot be confident that there is no significant risk of repeat behaviour in the event that suspension was found to be the appropriate sanction and that the respondent is fit to practise after any period of suspension.
"This is particularly due to the fact that Mr Shah has failed to have adequate regard to previous advice and warnings from the RCVS, coupled with multiple previous adverse findings of the Disciplinary Committee and the Preliminary Investigation Committee. The Committee has reached this conclusion having regard to the seriousness of its findings in this hearing, and the previous advice and warning given to the respondent, none of which appears to have been recognised or heeded."
The Committee therefore concluded that the only sanction which reflects the seriousness of this case, in the light of the previous findings and advice given to the Mr Shah by the College, is to remove him from the Register.
The Committee’s full facts and findings can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Charitable Trust has awarded five new bursaries in its latest grants round.
Two student bursaries were for UK veterinary undergraduates to attend the British Science Festival in Aberdeen from 4-9 September 2012. The bursary winners were Liv Nathan (pictured on right), a third-year veterinary student at the Royal Dick School of Veterinary Studies, and Alahel Mahdmina, a second-year veterinary student at the Royal Veterinary College.
Liv said: "I am very enthusiastic about providing real-life context to science and giving people a space to consider issues arising around science."
The students were required to use their observations and experiences to help the Trust develop future outreach activities to inform and inspire public audiences about veterinary clinical practice and research. Their bursary packages covered all their attendance expenses over the four-day event. One of their achievements was to film an interview with Dr Maggie Aderin-Pockock MBE, a space scientist (pictured on left). Both students will be reporting back in full to the RCVS Charitable Trust with their ideas at the end of October.
Two further bursaries were given to attend a joint symposium on antimicrobial resistance (AMR): 'Antimicrobial Resistance in Human and Veterinary Medicine - One Health, One Problem' to be held at the Royal College of Physicians, London, on Tuesday 2 October 2012.
One winner was Cahir King, a practitioner from Downe Veterinary Clinic in County Down, Northern Ireland. He said: "It will be a privilege to attend a symposium at which so many experts in their field will be speaking. Any vet who has worked on farms will be more than familiar with bugs that are resistant to antibiotic treatment."
The other winner was James Swann, a Junior Clinical Training Scholar (Small Animal) at the Royal Veterinary College. James said: "I am particularly interested in the application of clinical audit in practice to assess problems like AMR, and design effective strategies to deal with them. I believe it should be possible to provide simple audit kits for practices to download and implement, removing much of the inertia that prevents such ideas from being initiated."
The bursary winners will be offered free delegate passes, including lunch, worth £90, and travel expenses.
The final bursary is to attend the Veterinary Biomedical and Pharma Sciences (VBMPS) Congress on 15-16 October, in Birmingham.
The winning entry was from Alexander Stoll, a final-year student at the Royal Veterinary College, who acted as the Royal Veterinary College and UK student ambassador to the European Commission for the 'One Health' message. The Trust was impressed with Alexander's enthusiasm and active engagement in subjects related to One Health. He is a member of the Royal Society for Public Health and a member of the Society of Biology.
Alexander said: "I hope to be inspired to enter a cross-disciplinary career path and also to communicate the potential of a One Health approach, inspired by this congress."
Alexander won a package that includes entry to the conference and admission to all scientific sessions, worth £175, as well as transport costs and overnight food and accommodation.
The PIC decision marked the conclusion of its investigation into a concern that was raised formally last November involving allegations of bullying at Professor Argyle’s workplace, the University of Edinburgh.
Professor Argyle, who had previously decided to step aside from his JVP and Council duties until the concern was investigated and concluded, said: “Despite this outcome from the PIC discussions, I have now made the challenging decision to stand down from my position at the RCVS. This is to ensure there is no further distraction to the College’s important work and activities and that whoever becomes the next JVP has the full support of Council and RCVS members.
"It is also to reduce the toll this situation has taken on my family, colleagues and students, and on me personally. I am proud and privileged to have served on RCVS Council for nearly ten years and wish it well as it navigates the next chapter in its history."
RCVS President Mandisa Greene said: “I appreciate that this has been an exceptionally difficult situation and very upsetting for all involved.
"I understand why David has taken the difficult decision to stand down from RCVS Council and would like to thank him for his many years of service to the RCVS since joining Council in 2012.
"I would also like to reassure colleagues once again that, throughout, the College has remained firmly committed to following due, proper and fair process in all its regulatory activities."
Following Professor Argyle’s decision to step down, the process for electing a new JVP for the current presidential year will commence.
As Professor Argyle was a Veterinary Schools Council appointee on RCVS Council, it will be for that body to elect a replacement Council member.
Further details will be announced in due course.