The new President of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, Professor Stephen May, gave his maiden speech at the RCVS Day last Friday, in which he signalled his intent to help foster a nurturing, learning culture within the veterinary profession, one that allows veterinary surgeons and nurses to learn from their mistakes and pursue a range of careers and goals.

Stephen has been an elected member of RCVS Council since 2012, having previously been an appointed member of Council representing the Royal Veterinary College between 2001 and 2009.

In 2016 he was re-elected to Council to serve a further four-year term and currently chairs the Legislation Working Party.

Stephen graduated from Cambridge in 1980 and subsequently spent time as a large animal practitioner. After undertaking further training in equine surgery and diagnostic imaging at the University of Liverpool, he studied for a PhD at the Royal Veterinary College (RVC) before returning to Liverpool as a Lecturer in Equine Orthopaedics.

He went back to the RVC in 1993 to concentrate on equine clinical services and, in 1997, became Head of the Farm Animal and Equine Clinical Department. He was appointed the RVC’s Vice-Principal for Teaching from 2000 to 2013, Deputy Principal from 2013 to 2017 and currently holds the post of Senior Vice-Principal.

Addressing the need for a learning culture in his speech Stephen said: "Veterinary graduates have never had greater knowledge and technical skills than those graduating this year. But this can make their job so much harder when the certainty of scientific knowledge is confronted with the uncertainties of the sick animal, and the increasing number of possibilities for treatment have to be weighted alongside ethical and economic considerations.

"Of his age, but also prophetic of our age, the philosopher Bertrand Russell commented that 'habits of thought cannot change as quickly as techniques with the result that as skill increases, wisdom fails'.

"So it is important that our young professionals are well-prepared in terms of professional, non-technical skills to cope with the sheer variety of challenges that they encounter, and we, as a profession, within our professional model, provide a nurturing learning culture rather than the blame and cover-up culture that the current emphasis on external regulation fosters, so pervasively and distressingly."

Stephen added that his other priorities would be working with the British Veterinary Association and other stakeholders to uphold the College’s first Brexit principle that 'vital veterinary work continues to get done', a project on graduate outcomes, which flows from the Vet Futures project, and the Legislation Working Party.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed that a veterinary surgeon from Berkshire be removed from the Register, following his administration of a prohibited substance to a racehorse and his subsequent attempts to conceal his actions.

At a six-day hearing that concluded yesterday, James Main, a partner in the O'Gorman, Slater, Main & Partners veterinary practice in Newbury, and former lead veterinary surgeon to racehorse trainer Nicky Henderson, faced four charges of serious professional misconduct concerning his treatment of Moonlit Path, a six-year-old mare owned by The Queen.

Three of the charges related to Mr Main breaching British Horseracing Authority (BHA) rules by injecting Moonlit Path with tranexamic acid (TA) on the day she was due to race; the fourth charge related to his dishonest concealment of this treatment in his practice clinical records. Nicky Henderson had himself faced a BHA Inquiry into this case in 2009 and subsequently been sanctioned.

The Committee heard that on 18 February 2009, Mr Henderson's yard requested a veterinary surgeon attend Moonlit Path to administer an injection of Dycenene the following morning. The injection was requested as the mare was prone to exercise-induced pulmonary haemorrhage. Mr Main attended on the morning of 19 February and injected the horse with intravenous tranexamic acid. Moonlit Path raced at Huntingdon later that day, along with the eventual winner, and favourite, Ravello Bay - another horse trained by Mr Henderson. Moonlit Path finished sixth and a urine sample taken from her after the race tested positive for TA.

Of the four charges, Mr Main admitted injecting Moonlit Path with TA on the day she was due to race when he knew this breached the BHA's rule prohibiting any substance other than the horse's usual feed and water being given on race day. However, Mr Main denied knowing that, if tested, a horse would test positive for TA (thereby imposing a strict liability on the trainer); he denied administering a prohibited substance to a horse with the intention to affect that horse's racing performance; and, he denied dishonestly concealing the TA injection by omitting it from his clinical records and referring to it as a 'pre-race check'.

The Committee heard and carefully considered evidence from Mr Henderson and his employees, from BHA investigating officers and its Director of Equine Science and Welfare, from an expert equine physiologist and from Mr Main himself. In its findings, the Committee stated it was "unimpressed by Mr Henderson's evidence and surprised by his apparent lack of knowledge of the rules of racing".

Whilst the Committee accepted Mr Main believed at the time that Moonlit Path would not test positive for TA, it considered he failed to fully inform himself of the medicinal product he was using; especially so as TA does not possess a Marketing Authorisation as a veterinary medicinal product. In so doing, he did not meet his professional obligation to provide Mr Henderson with the information and advice he needed.

The Committee concluded that TA was a prohibited substance and, whilst accepting that Mr Main's concern had solely been for Moonlit Path's welfare, he had actually breached BHA rules by affecting her performance through administering such a substance.

Finally, the Committee found that Mr Main had deliberately concealed the TA injection to Moonlit Path by describing it in his notes as a 'pre-race check' - a protocol developed over several years between the practice and Mr Henderson. Such inaccurate clinical records were in breach of the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct and led the Committee to conclude he had acted dishonestly. The Committee also found Mr Main "did not act with candour" by claiming to have administered the TA injection the day before the race. On questioning by the Legal Assessor, however, he admitted that he had known that Moonlit Path was racing the same day that he administered the injection.

Professor Sheila Crispin, chairing the Committee, said: "[We] regard it as wholly unacceptable practice that a veterinary surgeon should be party to serious breaches of rules of another regulatory body in the field of animal welfare ... and which go to the very integrity of racing.

"Whilst the findings relate to a single incident, [we] are satisfied that Mr Main's actions amounted to pre-meditated misconduct ... It is highly relevant that Mr Main held positions of responsibility within the racing industry where he was required to uphold the rules and standards of the profession," she added.

Noting Mr Main's "long and hitherto unblemished career as a highly respected equine veterinary surgeon", the Committee accepted Mr Main's evidence that the reason for the administration of tranexamic acid was solely his concern about the welfare of the horse. Nevertheless, it found his evidence was "evasive, lacking in candour and on some aspects of the case his evidence was untrue".

Professor Crispin concluded: "...proven dishonesty has been held to come at the top end of the spectrum of gravity of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect ... Having considered carefully all the mitigation put forward on Mr Main's behalf, [we] have concluded that Mr Main's behaviour was wholly unacceptable and so serious that removal of his name from the Register is required."

The RCVS is attending an increased number of public events around the UK this summer, to promote 'Find A Vet', the Practice Standards Scheme (PSS) and careers within the profession. 

The outreach programme began earlier this month at the Devon County Show (pictured right), where the College used the opportunity to spread the word about its petsneedvets campaign, handing out over 1000 promotional bags in the process.

Next on the itinerary is the Royal Welsh Show near Builth Wells from the 23rd to 26th July. From there, the College will be heading to the BBC Countryfile Live event, held in the grounds of Blenheim Palace in Oxfordshire from the 2nd to 5th August.

Ian Holloway, Director of Communications at the RCVS, said: "Following the success and popularity of our stand at Countryfile Live over the past two years we decided that this year we would broaden our horizons and attend some of the UK’s most prestigious and well-attended regional events.

"We have our ever-popular careers materials available, and it was wonderful to see dozens of young people at the Devon County Show asking us about how they can become veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses, as they always have the past two years at Countryfile. This is a really encouraging level of interest in the professions and we’re very happy to provide information to help them fulfil their aspirations. 

"Attending more and different public events is a trend we are very keen on continuing with and we will be looking at other events to attend in different parts of the UK for next year."

For more information about upcoming events involving the RCVS visit www.rcvs.org.uk/events

Photo: Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons

The Codes were approved by RCVS Council and the Veterinary Nurses Council earlier this year, following a lengthy consultation and review process that began in 2009, and will replace the existing Guides to Professional Conduct.

The College says the new Codes are principles-based, easily accessible and, at 16 pages long compared to the 50-page Guides, much more concise. They bring the College's guidance into line with the codes of conduct of other regulatory bodies, and help to describe those professional responsibilities that are fundamental to veterinary surgeons' and veterinary nurses' practice.

To expand on and clarify these professional responsibilities, an additional 27 chapters of supporting guidance have been published on the RCVS website, which also consolidate and update all existing RCVS guidance for veterinary professionals.

Both Codes set out five principles of practice: professional competence; honesty and integrity; independence and impartiality; client confidentiality and trust; and, professional accountability.

The veterinary surgeons' Code features an update to the declaration made on admission to the profession and, for the first time, the veterinary nurses' Code includes a declaration to be made on professional registration.

Among the professional responsibilities introduced in the Codes are: mandatory recording of continuing professional development; a mandatory professional development phase for new veterinary surgeons and period of supervised practice for registered veterinary nurses (RVNs) returning to practice after a break; a Performance Protocol; and, notification to the RCVS of any matter that may affect fitness to practise, including convictions (although this will require further consideration by the College).

For the first time, mandatory clinical governance has been introduced, and minimum practice standards have also been incorporated, at equivalence to the core standards set out in the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme.

A pocket-sized hard copy of the Code will be posted to all vets and RVNs shortly, which will include references to where the supporting guidance and further information can be found on the RCVS website. The online versions - at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetcode and www.rcvs.org.uk/vncode - are fully searchable by keyword, and PDF versions will soon be available to download. A digital version is also being explored, to enable veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses to access the Codes and supporting guidance on smart phones and tablets.

Although only registered veterinary nurses have agreed to abide by the VN Code of Professional Conduct, the College hopes that all veterinary nurses will consider it a useful benchmark of professional standards.

Dr Jerry Davies, RCVS President, said: "I am delighted that this significant piece of work has come to fruition. The RCVS has shown that, despite aged legislation, the Codes will, through imaginative interpretation of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, ensure the public and their animals continue to receive the level of professional service they have come to expect from veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses in the UK."

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has accepted an application for restoration to the RCVS Register by James Main, who was struck off in 2011, following his administration of a prohibited substance to a racehorse and his subsequent attempts to conceal his actions.

At a Disciplinary Committee hearing held on 22 February 2011, Mr Main, a partner in the O'Gorman, Slater, Main & Partners veterinary practice in Newbury was found guilty of serious professional misconduct and his name was removed from the Register. The then-Committee established that, contrary to the British Horseracing Authority's (BHA) rules of racing, Mr Main had injected tranexamic acid into the racehorse 'Moonlit Path' on 19 February 2009, knowing that the horse was to race later that day. He was also found guilty of dishonestly concealing this injection in his practice records as a "pre-race check".

At yesterday's hearing, the Committee noted that the decision to remove Mr Main from the Register had sent a clear message to the profession of the importance of strict compliance with the BHA's Rules of Racing; it was the inevitable consequence of his breaches of those rules and his dishonesty in concealing the administration of the injection. In oral evidence, Mr Main said he accepted the findings and decision of the previous Committee, and he apologised.

The Committee also noted a number of changes since implemented at Mr Main's practice, including a pharmacy review to improve traceability of drugs; withdrawal of the use of tranexamic acid in the management of Exercise Induced Pulmonary Haemorrhage; and a cautious approach to drug withdrawal times. Mr Main's practice had also reviewed its processes to ensure its veterinary surgeons complied with all relevant rules, regulations and guidance, and that any requests by clients to breach these rules would be refused.

The Committee accepted evidence that Mr Main had worked in a management capacity in his practice since 26 March 2011, performing no clinical role, and had undertaken appropriate continuing professional development since being removed from the Register. It also noted the large volume of testimonials and public support presented at the hearing from both veterinary surgeons and clients in the horse world.

Furthermore, it noted that removal had been financially and emotionally detrimental to Mr Main, his family and practice and, if his name were not restored to the Register, there would be a continuing detrimental effect on his family finances and the practice.

Committee Chairman Professor Peter Lees said: "The Committee accepts that Mr Main has found the removal of his name from the Register a humbling and salutary experience and accepts his apologies. It is satisfied that he is very unlikely to breach the rules of racing in the future and does not consider that there is a risk to the future welfare of animals by restoring his name to the Register.

"The Committee does not consider that any further period of erasure would be of benefit either to the public or the veterinary profession."

The Committee directed that Mr Main's name be restored to the Register.

The Privy Council has approved a Recognition Order for the University of Surrey’s veterinary degree and it will be formally accredited by the RCVS from late next month.

The new Order will come into force on the 18th February 2020, from when students who graduate with the University of Surrey’s veterinary degree will automatically be able to join the Register of Veterinary Surgeons and to practise veterinary medicine in the UK.

The university’s Bachelor of Veterinary Medicine and Science (BVMSci Hons) degree will enter the College’s cyclical accreditation process and be subject to annual monitoring for quality assurance.

Accreditation of the degree was a five-year process during which the RCVS worked with the University of Surrey to ensure that its curriculum and programme met the College’s quality standards, including two interim accreditation visitations in 2017 and 2018 and a final accreditation visit in 2019.

Dr Niall Connell, RCVS President, said: “We are very glad that the University of Surrey’s veterinary degree has now cleared the last hurdle and that, as of next month, it will join the roster as the UK’s eighth recognised veterinary degree. I commend the hard work that the faculty, students and the university’s clinical partners have put in to develop the course over the past five years and we look forward to continue to work with them to ensure that the high standards are maintained."

Professor Chris Proudman, Head of the School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Surrey, said: "I am delighted that the University of Surrey’s School of Veterinary Medicine has become the UK’s eighth provider of veterinary education. The support and enthusiasm of our partner practice network has been essential in delivering our vision of competent, confident and compassionate veterinary graduates."

The full RCVS accreditation standards for veterinary degrees can be found here: www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/accrediting-primary-qualifications/accrediting-veterinary-degrees/accreditation-standards/

Photo: (from l-r) Susan Paterson, Chair of the RCVS Education Committee, Professor Chris Proudman, Head of the School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Surrey, and Niall Connell, RCVS President.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against a Nottinghamshire veterinary surgeon, having found not proven the charge that he had caused, allowed or failed to prevent a potential breach of the Rules of Racing of the Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB).

During the re-scheduled, three-day hearing, the Committee heard that Dr Gary Samuel was on duty on 10 October 2009 as the GBGB licensed track veterinary surgeon at Nottingham Greyhound Stadium. When the trainer came to collect her dog for the race, she discovered a biscuit in his kennel in the paddock area, in potential contravention of the rules of the GBGB, which do not allow greyhounds access to any food, drink or other substance after weighing in, prior to a race. She reported this discovery to the paddock steward. The dog was withdrawn from the race, so there was no prospect of prize money. The trainer, despite her unblemished record, was put at risk of disciplinary action by the GBGB, which could have resulted in the loss of her training licence and livelihood. Following the events of 10 October, the GBGB held a disciplinary hearing, at which Dr Samuel was disqualified indefinitely from holding a GBGB licence and fined £2,500, and the matter was referred to the College.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee confirmed that it should not be bound by the GBGB decision, and that the charges laid against Dr Samuel must be resolved on the basis of the evidence before it. Both Counsel for Dr Samuel and the College urged the Committee to have close regard of CCTV footage from 10 October, which showed Kennel 21 where the dog had been placed and the biscuit found. From evidence given by the paddock steward and the trainer, the Committee accepted that the kennel was clean when the dog entered at 5.30pm, so the biscuit must have been introduced between 5.30pm and 9pm, when the trainer collected him for the race.

The footage available to the Committee from Nottingham Race Track was only four-and-a-half minutes long. The Committee was concerned that there were almost three-and-a-half hours of footage that it had not been shown and that, in addition, witnesses were not able to state that they had viewed the remainder of the footage. In those circumstances, the Committee considered that the footage available must be of the best quality to allow it to reach a sure conclusion as to what exactly Dr Samuel may have been doing in his position close to Kennel 21. From the quality of the footage available, the Committee was not able to be sure.

Speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, Vice-Chairman Professor Sheila Crispin said: "The fact remains that the Committee cannot be sure that the Respondent caused the biscuit to enter Kennel 21, [so] finds the charge against the Respondent not proved."

Dr Samuel therefore remains on the RCVS Register and is entitled to practise.

Veterinary surgeon Andrew Reeder, Director of the Stonehenge Veterinary Hospital, in Durrington, near Salisbury, was the lucky winner of a Sony Pocket e-Reader in the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' prize draw at the London Vet Show in November.

The competition was mounted to launch an online quiz to test members' knowledge of the Guide to Professional Conduct. All those who completed the quiz on the RCVS stand at the event were entered into a prize draw: the RCVS would like to stress that it was a random draw, in spite of the serendipity of Andrew's surname!

"This is brilliant, I so rarely win anything!" said Andrew. "I'd recommend that all RCVS members should have a go at the quiz - it's quick, easy to complete and certainly makes you think."

Over 600 people have tackled the quiz so far. Those who fancy testing their knowledge of the Guide should visit www.rcvs.org.uk/guidequiz. The quiz is anonymous, but the College will be collating data to help focus future communications activities and see where extra guidance may be required. On completion of the quiz, it is possible to review answers and view the relevant section of the online Guide.

Northamptonshire-based Joanna Wicksteed has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after being convicted of theft and fraud, and found to be dishonest and misleading in not declaring a police caution and an adult restorative disposal to the College.

Ms Wicksteed faced five charges.

The first charge concerned her conviction in May 2021, following a jury trial at Oxford Crown Court, for one count of theft and two counts of fraud for which she was sentenced to a two-year community order, including 150 hours of unpaid work, and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £2,800, £177.07 to Barclays Bank and £85 as a victims’ surcharge.

She admitted this charge at the outset of the RCVS Disciplinary Committee hearing.

The second charge concerned the allegation that, in October 2015, she was made subject to an ‘adult restorative disposal’ (‘ARD’) following thefts from Tesco Extra Stores.

This charge was found proven after Ms Wicksteed admitted in her evidence to the Committee that she had signed the ARD.

The third charge concerned the allegation that, in January 2018, she stole from a Debenhams department store and, in March that year, was given a formal police caution.

This charge was found proven by the Committee.

The fourth charge was that, in her annual renewal declarations made each year with the RCVS from 2016 through 2021, she had failed to declare the ARD and the caution.

However, under the Code of Professional Conduct, veterinary surgeons are not required to declare ARDs as they are not convictions, cautions or adverse findings.

Ms Wicksteed was therefore cleared of failing to declare her ARD.

Nevertheless, the Committee found that she had failed to declare her police caution in her annual renewal declarations.

The fifth charge was that in failing to make declarations upon renewing her registration, she was dishonest, misleading and had failed to take adequate steps to inform the College of the caution and the ARD.

The Committee found this charge proven in respect of the caution only and not the ARD.

The Committee then considered whether the first charge, which Ms Wicksteed admitted, rendered her unfit to practise, and whether the remaining charges that were found proven amounted to serious professional misconduct.

Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee noted that the conviction concerned three elements of dishonesty: theft and two counts of fraud.

"It involved stealing from a junior colleague at work, and the fraudulent activity – the use of the colleague’s card - was carefully planned in that, when it was used, it was in respect of items which did not cumulatively cost in excess of £30 and therefore did not require knowledge of the card holder’s PIN.

"It was used twice in the Tesco Store. Between those times, Ms Wicksteed changed her appearance by taking off her coat and waited some 20 minutes.”

She added: “The Committee accepted the College’s argument that members of the public would find it abhorrent for a member of the profession to have acted in this way – stealing from a junior colleague a card held under a Power of Attorney for her brother, and spending money using that card, deliberately keeping each transaction under the contactless limit to try to conceal the conduct.

"Honesty and integrity is one of the five key principles which must be maintained by members of the profession.”

The Committee found that this charge alone rendered Ms Wicksteed unfit to practise veterinary surgery.

The Committee also found that the proven elements of the remaining charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, both individually and cumulatively.

The Committee then considered the sanction for Ms Wicksteed.

In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee considered that there was actual harm to a vulnerable person in the case of the conviction for theft and fraud, the misconduct and dishonesty it entailed was repeated, there were elements of premeditation in the conduct, there was inadequate insight shown into her behaviour, and there was wilful disregard of the College and its processes.

In terms of mitigation, the Committee considered supportive statements and character references from professional colleagues and clients and accepted that there was no actual or potential harm to animals, that Ms Wicksteed had a hitherto unblemished career as demonstrated by the references, and that there had been a significant lapse of time since some of the elements of the charges, albeit she had not declared them.

The Committee also accepted that Ms Wicksteed had suffered from ill-health, although had not seen evidence that directly connected her health with the dishonest behaviour.

Taking into account all the factors, the Committee decided that removal from the Register was the appropriate and proportionate sanction, referencing Ms Wicksteed’s breaches in relation to: serious departure from and reckless disregard for the professional behaviours set out in the Code of Professional Conduct; causing serious harm to the public and breach of trust; persistent and concealed dishonesty; and persistent lack of insight into the seriousness of her  conduct.

www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

Nottinghamshire-based veterinary surgeon Victor Daniel Pousada Garcia has been suspended from the Register for five months by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee following a conviction for harassment.

Mr Garcia had pleaded guilty of harassment at Nottingham Magistrates Court last September and was sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months. The magistrates also imposed a restraining order and ordered Mr Garcia to pay compensation and costs as well as a surcharge to fund victim services. 

The harassment conviction related to incidents between 30 September 2016 and 27 December 2016 in which Mr Garcia engaged in conduct that amounted to harassment towards a woman including sending offensive text messages, visiting her place of work, attempting to contact her through social media, going to her home address and driving past her home address.

At the outset of the disciplinary hearing Mr Garcia admitted the College's charge against him and that his conviction rendered him unfit to practise veterinary surgery.

Following cross-examination of Mr Garcia on the facts of the case and having  considered representation from his counsel, the Disciplinary Committee found that Mr Garcia’s conduct leading to conviction and the conviction itself rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.

Mehmuda Mian, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "It was a serious conviction as demonstrated by the sentence imposed and by the nature of the harassment. It brought distress on [the victim] and will have damaged the reputation of the veterinary profession. The respondent was right to accept that this was the case."

Turning to the sanction for Mr Garcia the Committee considered a number of aggravating factors in his case including the distress caused to the victim as some of the text messages could be interpreted as threats to harm; the fact that Mr Garcia had continued to contact the victim after receiving a warning from the police; the fact he visited her place of work; that there was a sexual element to some of the messages he sent to the victim; and that the pattern of behaviour was sustained over three months and only ended with his arrest. It also considered that his behaviour was contrary to the Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance’s advice on professional and appropriate use of social media.

The Committee also considered mitigating factors such as the fact that, during the period of his conduct, there was a family illness and bereavement; that he admitted the charges before the magistrates and the Committee; that ‘social ineptitude’ was a factor and that he did not recognise the rejection he received from the victim; testimonials as to his capabilities as a veterinary surgeon; and insight into his behaviour as well as taking steps to avoid its repetition. 

Ms Mian concluded: "The Committee has determined to suspend the respondent’s registration for a period of five months. This sanction reflects the seriousness of the conviction and the concerns expressed by the Committee in this determination. It will send a message to the respondent and to the profession that conduct such as this is unacceptable. It will afford an opportunity to the respondent to reflect further on his behaviour." 

Mr Garcia will have 28 days from the end of the hearing to appeal against the Committee’s decision.

The Committee’s full findings and decision  are available at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

The RCVS is calling for veterinary surgeons to help test its new continuing professional development (CPD) recording platform which is currently in development.

Earlier this year, the RCVS Council approved the roll-out of a more outcomes-based model of CPD to encourage veterinary professionals to engage in greater reflection on learning and development, and the impact that it has on their professional practice.

To support this approach, Council also approved the development of a new CPD recording platform designed to be more intuitive and to make it easy to record CPD in real time.

The College says the new platform – which has the working title of 'One CPD' – will be a ‘one stop shop’ CPD management solution for veterinary surgeons and nurses at all stages of their careers, including veterinary students and student veterinary nurses.

Richard Burley, RCVS Chief Technology Officer, said: "We’re excited to open up access to this powerful, next-generation, tool we’ve been building and welcome our members into an important phase of the development process. Testing with our members will be absolutely critical in delivering the very best experience possible for all those that use 'One CPD' in the future. Ease of use and truly valuable functionality are key deliverables for us and both these need the feedback of our members to perfect."

Dr Linda Prescott-Clements, RCVS Director of Education (pictured right), added: "The first stage of the development of the CPD recording platform is due to finish in October and so we are looking for a cohort of both veterinary surgeons and nurses who can spend a few months this autumn using the new platform to record and reflect on their CPD, in order to test out some of the new features which aim to make this process so much easier to do. We will consider their feedback carefully in order to improve the recording platform ready for launch in January 2020.

"The new ‘One CPD’ platform will ultimately replace the current Professional Development Record, and its use will become mandatory for recording CPD from January 2022.

"In addition to setting up the testing group, we are also looking to meet with key CPD providers for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses over the coming months to discuss our plans for outcomes-based CPD and the development of the recording platform in greater detail."

Veterinary surgeons who'd like to take part in the testing for the CPD app, as well as CPD providers who want to discuss the College’s CPD policy plans, should contact Jenny Soreskog-Turp, RCVS CPD Officer, on cpd@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0701.

Sylwia Kalisz MRCVS has been reprimanded by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for lapses in clinical judgement in relation to the treatment of a cocker spaniel.

Dr Kalisz faced a total of nine charges (including 41 sub-charges).

The first was that in July 2020, she failed to carry out a clinical examination of the dog, failed to adequately interpret test results, failed to ask for help interpreting the results, and undertook an emergency Caesarean section without sufficient need to do so.

The other charges related to undertaking a colotomy without sufficient justification and without exercising sufficient clinical judgment throughout the procedure.

For both the Caesarean section and the colotomy, Dr Kalisz faced charges that she failed to obtain informed consent from the owners and failed to inform them that the colotomy had been carried out, or of the potential risks of the procedure, and also failed to provide enough information about aftercare.

It was also alleged that Dr Kalisz had demonstrated continual lapses in professional judgement, including failing to appropriately manage the spaniel’s worsening condition when it was presented to the practice again later, and that the clinical records in relation to the surgery were dishonest and/or misleading.

Dr Kalisz admitted serious professional misconduct, admitting to 29 of the sub-charges, while the remaining 12 sub-charges were denied.

The Committee found 30 of the sub-charges proven, with the remaining 11 not proven.

The Committee the considered aggravating factors, including the fact that Dr Kalisz's conduct led to the spaniel’s death, the colotomy was reckless and Dr Kalisz did not take steps to inform anybody or make a clinical record for the colotomy.

In mitigation, the Committee considered the fact that it was single and isolated incident (albeit one that spanned a number of days), that no other members of the clinical team involved raised concerns during the procedure, and the effect Covid had upon the veterinary profession.

The Committee found that of those charges proven, the ones relating to performing the colotomy, failing to manage the spaniel’s subsequent care and failing to mention the colotomy amounted to serious professional misconduct.

On deciding the sanction, the Committee took into account the mitigation submitted on behalf of Dr Kalisz and the written testimonials produced including the fact that she was young and inexperienced, had admitted her failings at an early stage, had made subsequent efforts to avoid a repetition of such behaviour and that a significant amount of time had passed since the incident.

The Committee also considered that Dr Kalisz had shown an exemplary level of insight, showing remorse for her actions, undertaking substantial continuing professional development, and finding appropriate ongoing professional mentorship.

The Committee was impressed by the character testimonials from veterinary co-workers, both current and at the time of these events, as well as from clients.

It was, the Committee said, apparent from those testimonials that Dr Kalisz had been open and honest with them about the charges and was considered to be an excellent, committed veterinary surgeon.

Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf said: “The Committee found that this was a single isolated incident, which involved serious lapses of clinical judgement.

"It was therefore concluded that, despite Dr Kalisz’s actions being reckless, the extensive mitigation and the high level of insight, coupled with steps taken to avoid repetition, meant that there was negligible future risk to animal welfare.

“The Committee did not consider it necessary to issue a warning to Dr Kalisz about her future conduct, on the basis that the Committee has concluded that there is little risk of repetition, so considered that a reprimand would be an appropriate sanction in this case.”

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