Kit was appointed by RCVS Council at its June meeting, making him responsible for maintaining an overview of the College’s financial affairs, ensuring the College’s financial viability, and making sure proper records and procedures are maintained.
Kit replaces Dr Amanda Boag who was elected Junior Vice-President by RCVS Council at its March meeting. He has been an RCVS Council Member since 2013 and currently sits on the Standards Committee, as well as lecturing, writing and other projects such as teaching at the local primary school. He also works three days a week seeing clinical cases in both referral and primary care practices.
Kit said: "I am very honoured to have been appointed Treasurer, and look forward to continuing Amanda’s careful stewardship of the College finances with the support of other Council members and the team at Belgravia House.
"Due to uncertainties surrounding the impact of Brexit and increasing inflation, RCVS Council decided at its June meeting to increase the annual renewal fees for veterinary surgeons. I am confident that this will keep the College finances in a healthy state, and I look forward to building on Amanda’s legacy ensuring that the College remains steady over the course of my tenure."
At RCVS Day Amanda will also be made Junior Vice-President, and Dr Stephen May will take up the position of RCVS President for 2017-2018.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Charitable Trust has announced 'Open Educational Resources to help new practitioners cope', a new initiative that will focus on the needs of veterinary graduates starting out in practice
The project will be jointly funded by the Higher Education Academy and JISC, who have agreed to provide a maximum of £25,000.
The project will identify the key needs of today's new veterinary graduates, and review what available ('open educational') resources already exist or can be adapted to meet those needs. The project will also encourage the sharing of these resources, and other ways of making these more accessible to new veterinary surgeons.
Nick Short, RCVS Trust trustee and Head of eMedia Unit at the Royal Veterinary College said: "New graduates moving from university to veterinary practices can face significant challenges, whether these come from long hours, demanding clients or finding that limited supervision may be offered by their employers. Veterinary practice by its nature can be emotionally fraught as well as intensely rewarding, as it involves, for example, helping clients make decisions about the treatment or euthanasia of pets, or advising farmers about valuable livestock. This means it's important that appropriate support is available to new practitioners."
The Trust will work in partnership with UK veterinary schools and other organisations on this project, and will aim to complement the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' Professional Development Phase (PDP) for new graduates, and in particular the set of 'Year One Competences' that new graduates are expected to achieve within approximately their first year in practice. Supervision during the PDP is provided by the vet's employer and progress towards achieving the Year One Competences is monitored by their RCVS-appointed Postgraduate Dean, so the Trust's project will look at what other resources are available or could be adapted to support new graduates as they attain this level of competence.
A project co-ordinator is being recruited to work until September on the project, after which the findings will be disseminated through a report and associated workshop. Further details about the project and the project co-ordinator role can be found at www.rcvstrust.org.uk/graduateoer
The elections will again be held completely online this year.
Veterinary surgeons have until 5pm on Monday 31st January 2022 to put themselves forward as candidates for the elections which will take place in March and April 2022.
The full eligibility criteria can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil22, where prospective candidates will also find further information about the role of the RCVS, RCVS Council and RCVS Council members, guidance notes, and frequently asked questions about standing as a candidate.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for the elections, said: “We look forward to hearing from prospective candidates and are happy to give further information about what being an RCVS Council member means and what the role entails to those who may be considering standing for office.”
Prospective candidates for RCVS Council can also contact RCVS President Dr Kate Richards for an informal conversation on what it means to be an RCVS Council member on president@rcvs.org.uk
Kate said: “I’m on Council for my second term and can reassure any prospective candidates that it is a wonderful experience, both personally and professionally.
"You will learn new things not only about the College, but also the professions, policy and government; you will have fascinating discussions and debates with colleagues on issues of great importance and consequence; and you will make those important professional 'connections that count' with colleagues across the veterinary world and beyond. It is a career highlight.”
Prospective candidates for RCVS Council are welcome to attend the next Council meeting online, on Thursday 20th January 2022.
Contact Dawn Wiggins, RCVS Council Secretary, if you would like to attend: d.wiggins@rcvs.org.uk.
The Disciplinary Committee heard that Mrs Garfield had told a representative of the Retired Greyhound Trust (RGT) that she had possession of a greyhound called Lola, that she proposed keeping Lola living with her as an adoptee, and that she would not relinquish possession of Lola except to the RGT. This was despite the fact that, at the time of signing the adoption agreement, she had already given Lola to another charity named Greyhound Gap and that, as a result, her conduct was misleading and dishonest.
In considering the facts of the case, the Committee found the charges and all constituent parts proven and went on to consider whether this amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The end result of the respondent’s decisions and conduct meant that RGT was persuaded to pass lawful possession and ownership of the dog Lola to the respondent when it would not have agreed to do so had it been told the truth by her.
"In truth, the respondent was not going to adopt and re-home Lola herself. Instead the respondent’s plan and intention was that Lola should be passed on to a third party who had been recommended by a rival dog rescue charity for rehome and adoption."
Judith added: "The consequence was that a social media dispute broke out when the rival dog charity decided to attempt to take advantage of the erroneous belief of the respondent that a decision had been taken by RGT to put Lola to sleep. The publicity generated by the respondent’s erroneous belief… was obviously adverse…. The gravamen [seriousness] of the respondent’s dishonest conduct was that she set one dog rescue charity against another, caused them to spend publicly raised funds on a legal dispute about who should be allowed to retain Lola when those precious funds ought, instead, to have been spent on their charitable objectives."
The Committee judged that the charge and its parts constituted serious professional misconduct and went on to consider the sanction against Mrs Garfield.
In considering the proportionate sanction the Committee took into account both mitigating and aggravating factors. In terms of aggravating factors the Committee considered that the dishonesty was pre-meditated, that she accused members of a rescue charity of lying and demonstrated no or only minimal insight into her wrongdoing. In mitigation the Committee considered that Mrs Garfield had cooperated with the College in its investigations, that she had acted in the genuine belief that she was acting in the best interests of Lola and that her conduct did not put Lola at risk or cause her to suffer any adverse consequences as a result. The Committee also accepted the testimonials and positive evidence from colleagues.
However, the Committee decided that removal from the Register would be the only appropriate sanction.
Summing up Judith Way said: "The reputational consequences for RGT were potentially significant bearing in mind that it is a rescue organisation with some 57 or so branches across the country. All of these consequences, actual and potential, stem from the respondent’s premeditated act of dishonesty in relation to which the Committee considers she showed very limited insight prior to this disciplinary hearing, as she did during the course of this hearing.
"In the result, it is the conclusion and decision of this Committee that the only proper sanction that can be imposed in this case is that the respondent’s name should be removed from the Register.”
Mrs Garfield has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to appeal.
The RCVS has announced a number of senior staff changes.
Gordon Hockey has been ratified by Council as Head of Legal Services and Registrar. This is a new role created when the post of Registrar and Secretary was split into two: Chief Executive and Secretary; and Head of Legal Services and Registrar.
Gordon, who was previously Assistant Registrar/Head of Professional Conduct, and then Acting Registrar, will have oversight responsibility for registration and professional conduct.
At the same time, Eleanor Ferguson, formerly Acting Head of Professional Conduct, has been confirmed in the position.
The post of Head of Registration has been made redundant, with a new role of Customer Experience Manager created to ensure that the customer (public and profession) journey improves across the organisation. This position will also report into Gordon Hockey.
There have been other changes on the Senior Team at the College. The post of Head of Corporate Services that had been vacant since the departure of Richard Holford last December will not be filled, and Head of Finance Corrie McCann has been promoted to the new role of Head of Operations, which will incorporate finance, corporate services (IT, mailing, reception) and facilities.
Two other posts have been made redundant: Special Projects Manager and RCVS Charitable Trust Director. A new post of Executive Director for the Trust will be developed, with a view to taking the Trust through a full strategic review.
Chief Executive Nick Stace said: "I believe that an engaged and well-purposed team of staff, with a focus on customer service and driving improvements, lies at the heart of any successful organisation. These changes will enable the College to move into the next stage of its development towards becoming a first-rate regulator."
The changes will mean that the Senior Team is reduced from 11 people to seven, being the Chief Executive plus Heads of Legal Services, Operations, Human Resources, Education, Veterinary Nursing and Communications.
The RCVS has announced that nominations are now open for the Veterinary Nursing Golden Jubilee Award 2014, an an honour which recognises those who have made an outstanding contribution to the veterinary nursing profession.
Nominations can be made until 1 May 2014 and this year the College is looking for nominees who have made an exceptional contribution to the profession, animal welfare or patient care - whether in clinical practice, education, research or politics. Nominees can be registered or listed veterinary nurses, veterinary surgeons or lay people.
Kathy Kissick, Chair of VN Council, said: "With this award we are looking for someone who can be an excellent ambassador for the veterinary nursing profession; who has made a real and substantial difference to the profession; and who can raise its profile and fight its corner.
"I would urge all those who are passionate about the profession and its future to put forward someone who they think is deserving of this honour."
The award was launched in 2011 to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the first RCVS veterinary nursing training scheme. The first recipient of the award was Jean Turner, while Sue Badger received the accolade in 2012.
The nomination form for the award can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk/goldenjubilee which also features a video of Kathy Kissick talking about its importance. Alternatively, you can view the video on www.youtube.com/rcvsvideos
The nominators must be registered/listed veterinary nurses or veterinary surgeons but the two additional proposers can be lay people.
For further information about the award please contact Annette Amato, Deputy Head of Veterinary Nursing, on 020 7202 0713 or a.amato@rcvs.org.uk.
The RCVS is seeking the views of veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and members of the public about proposals for a new Royal Charter which would clarify and underpin the role of the College and give it formal recognition as regulator of the veterinary nursing profession.
The new Charter, approved at a meeting of RCVS Council in November, would replace the 1967 Supplemental Charter, with the most far reaching change being a proposal to make veterinary nursing a formally regulated profession on a similar footing to veterinary surgeons. Veterinary nurses would become associates of the College and have the post-nominal letters RVN. The List and the Register of Veterinary Nurses would also be effectively combined, meaning that the 1,100 listed veterinary nurses would join the 10,500 already on the Register.
Under the proposals registered veterinary nurses would continue to need to fulfil certain responsibilities, including abiding by the Code of Professional Conduct and completing an average of 15 hours a year of continuing professional development, and would be subject to RCVS disciplinary procedures.
What's new is that individuals struck off from the Register for serious professional misconduct would no longer be able to give medical treatment or carry out minor surgery under veterinary direction.
As well as changes to the regulation of veterinary nursing, the proposed Charter would also more clearly state the role and remit of the RCVS, for example, in advancing standards through the promotion of continuing professional development and the Practice Standards Scheme.
Professor Stephen May, a member of RCVS Council who led the Legislation Working Party that developed the new Charter proposals, said: "The proposed new Charter represents an historic opportunity to affirm the role of the RCVS, and to provide a modern framework for the future regulation of the professions. I call on veterinary surgeons and nurses, together with other interested stakeholders, to read the consultation documents and support our proposals."
Speaking about the need for change, RCVS President Neil Smith added: "The consultation paper explains why it is time to replace the 1967 Charter with a new version which sets out the role of the College. The present Charter doesn't explain what objects the RCVS should set out to achieve, and it is silent about veterinary nurses. The remit of the College should include being the regulator for the veterinary nursing profession, and we want a new Charter to recognise registered veterinary nurses.
"We hope that the new Charter will provide a solid basis for the work of the College for years to come. We would urge members of the professions and the public to let us know what they think and help us to make sure that we have got it right."
The consultation paper, which contains further details about the proposed Charter, is available to download at www.rcvs.org.uk/consultations. Those who wish to have their say must respond to b.myring@rcvs.org.uk with their comments by Friday 7 February 2014.
The RCVS will also be organising a meeting and a webinar during the consultation period for those who wish to ask questions about the proposals. Those interested in attending a meeting should email b.myring@rcvs.org.uk. The webinar will be held early in 2014 - further details will be on www.rcvs.org.uk in due course.
The RCVS is calling for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses to supply up-to-date email addresses for its Survey of the Professions, which will take place early next year.
The survey is carried out every four years and, for the first time, next year's will be online only. It will ask questions about how vets and veterinary nurses are using their qualifications, how they carry out continuing professional development, what kind of practices they work in and their views on the profession, amongs other things.
The surveys will be sent via email so correct addresses are needed to make sure that veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses can have their say. Email addresses should also be unique, rather than being a generic practice email address, for example, so that the survey is sent to an individual rather than a whole team. This is also important for other emails from the College, such as personal fee or deadline reminders.
The RCVS also needs up-to-date contact details in order to offer members a better range of online services, such as the ability to better manage their Register details.
In order to check and update their contact details veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses should visit the log in area at www.rcvs.org.uk/login. Alternatively, they can contact the College's Registration Department on 020 7202 0707 or membership@rcvs.org.uk
The plans developed by the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA), an agency of the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA), involved the creation of a new role of Certification Support Officers (CSOs), non-veterinarians who would support the work of Official Veterinarians (OVs) in the signing of export health certificates for products of animal origin such as meat, dairy, processed products and animal by-products.
The proposals for the creation of CSOs by APHA has arisen due to concerns about the growth of exports in recent years and the potential for an up to 300% increase in products requiring OV certification if the UK has to certify exports of products of animal origin to the EU once the UK leaves the EU. Under APHA’s plans CSOs will work under the direction of veterinary surgeons and support their certification work (for example, verifying temperature checks), although the final certification will always need to be signed by OVs. The role will not involve certification relating to live animals or germinal products.
At the RCVS Council meeting on Thursday 1 November 2018 Council members agreed to facilitate APHA’s proposals and to make changes to the RCVS requirements so as to allow CSOs to support OVs in their certification work.
Amanda Boag, RCVS President, said: "As we have stated in our recent statement on ‘no-deal’ Brexit, it has been estimated that there would be 325% increase in veterinary certification requirements if the UK leaves the EU without a deal, and with these proposals Defra and APHA are preparing for this by increasing the support available for Official Veterinarians. Furthermore the proposal is in line with the concept of a vet-led team, with veterinary surgeons focusing on tasks only vets can do, whilst delegating some tasks to suitably trained and quality-assured members of our teams.
"We appreciate that there were some concerns over the level of education and training required by CSOs and are glad that the APHA has accommodated those views by increasing the level of education to three A-Levels (or equivalent in Scotland) and clarifying the nature of the training required by CSOs.
"By signalling its support for the proposals, RCVS Council has been assured that the integrity and value of the veterinary signature will be upheld and we are glad that we can play a key role in helping the veterinary profession prepare the UK for leaving the EU."
The RCVS position statement on the potential impact of a ‘no-deal’ Brexit scenario is available at www.rcvs.org.uk/brexit
The definition agreed by VN Council is as follows:
Veterinary nursing aims to ease the suffering and pain of animals, and to improve their health and welfare.
This includes providing any medical treatment or any minor surgery (not involving entry into a body cavity) to animals under the direction of a veterinary surgeon who has that animal under their care.
Veterinary nursing can be either proactive or reactive, and autonomous or collaborative. It is carried out in a wide variety of settings, for animals at all life stages, and considers the background and needs of the animal’s owner or keeper.
Matthew Rendle RVN, the Chair of VN Council, said: “Although it is just a few short lines, this definition of veterinary nursing has been in the pipeline for some time.
"While we as veterinary nurses have always been able to define ourselves by the type of tasks we carry out, or our relation to veterinary surgeons in terms of delegation, there hasn’t necessarily been a clear statement articulating the art and science of veterinary nursing.
“With the RCVS looking to expand its regulatory remit to include other veterinary paraprofessionals over the long term, we thought it was particularly important that we set out the stall for veterinary nursing and we hope that this clear statement will, in particular, aid the public in understanding the role of a veterinary nurse.
“It should be noted that this definition is VN Council’s own considered interpretation of the art and science of veterinary nursing.
"Other interpretations from other organisations, provided they conform with both Schedule 3 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act and the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct, could sit comfortably alongside ours, and we hope there continues to be healthy discussion about the contribution of the profession to the veterinary team, as our role evolves.”
Laura Padron Vega was struck off in December 2018 after dishonestly backdating two statutory Certificates of Competence submitted to the Food Standards Agency under the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing Regulations 2015.
She was also found to have failed in her duties as an OV because she was unprepared for, and unaware of, the new regulations and did not take adequate steps to ensure that the two people for whom she had given veterinary certification were licensed to perform slaughter in accordance with the regulations.
At the outset of the restoration hearing, Ms Padron Vega admitted her guilt and made representations that she appreciated the seriousness of her actions and that there was no chance of her repeating them. She also produced a number of testimonials, including some from former veterinary colleagues, in addition to evidence that she had endeavoured to keep up-to-date with her continuing professional development while off the Register although this had been difficult due to her financial circumstances.
In considering her application for restoration, the Committee found that Ms Padron Vega had accepted the reasons for her removal from the Register and the seriousness of the findings. It found that she was unlikely to repeat the behaviour and that her conduct had been entirely acceptable since she was removed from the Register. It also considered her financial and personal circumstances, noting the difficulty she had in securing well-paid, full-time employment since her removal from the Register, and the impact that this had on her being able to keep up-to-date with her continuing professional development.
However, the Committee expressed concerns over her efforts to keep up-to-date with the knowledge and skills she would need to return to practice and said she demonstrated “no real appreciation of what she needed to put in place to demonstrate that she can return to work safely”.
In particular it found that the CPD she had undertaken was unstructured and insufficient and that therefore she had not done enough at the present time to demonstrate that she was fit to be restored to the Register, especially as she signalled that, if restored, she hoped to work in small animal practice, an area that she had not worked in for some time.
Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “While the Committee did not consider that the applicant was in a position to return to practice at this point, it did consider that if the applicant applies herself to a properly structured and focused Return to Practice Plan and is able to produce evidence of how she has fulfilled the requirements of that plan, then her application could prove successful within a short time.
"The outcome of the plan for a return to practice will need to ensure the continued protection of the welfare of animals as well as the interests of clients whose animals she might be called upon to treat and, most importantly, the public interest which is founded on a belief that the veterinary certification processes are beyond question or doubt."
In order to allow Ms Padron Vega sufficient time to develop this plan, the Committee adjourned the restoration hearing for seven months (until July 2021).
Ms Jones added: “This adjournment will afford [Ms Padron Vega] an early opportunity to reflect on the concerns of the Committee… and to return with a properly supported programme for the future which will show her understanding of the problems that are likely to face her on her return to practice and her proposals to meet those inevitable difficulties.”
The Disciplinary Committee heard that the offence took place in 2013, when Dr Surdila was not a registered veterinary surgeon.
However she pleaded guilty to the charge in 2019, by which time she was.
Dr Surdila testified that in 2010, she and her family owned a few beehives and applied for EU funding to help expand their operation into a business.
A requirement of the funding was that Dr Surdila and her sister belong to a licensed bee-keeping co-operative.
They joined their local co-operative, and paid a consultant to manage their funding application.
Three years later, their consultant switched Dr Surdila and her sister to a different cooperative, for reasons they did not understand.
After another three years or so, Dr Surdila's family decided to close the business because she was at university and the others had other commitments.
Dr Surdila later moved to the UK and joined a practice in Motherwell, Scotland.
Then, in 2019, when Dr Surdila had been in the UK for four years, it transpired that the second co-operative they had joined was unlicensed and they had therefore not been entitled to received the funds from the EU (which amounted to a few thousand euros), and would be prosecuted by the National Department of Anti-Corruption.
Meanwhile, the consultant they had paid to manage their funding application had died.
Dr Surdila stated that everything she had signed for the unlicensed co-op had been signed in good faith, but she was advised by her lawyer that as she had signed legally binding documents for the funding, and because the consultant had died, her only option was to plead guilty.
She was sentenced to two years imprisonment, suspended for two years, 60 days of community service and was required to pay 19,544.7 Romanian Lei (approximately £3,300) in damages.
Her lawyer advised her to appeal her sentence which was harsh considering the circumstances.
However, the appeal was postponed several times because of Covid-19 and was ultimately unsuccessful.
In concluding whether the conviction rendered Dr Surdila unfit to practise, Mrs Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Dr Surdila’s conviction was of a nature and seriousness that required a finding that she was unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon on public interest grounds”.
The Committee then turned to sanction and in reaching its decision, Mrs Way said: “This was a serious conviction with a significant sentence, involving an element of bad faith.
"The Committee considered it important to mark this behaviour in some way because Dr Surdila should have been more cognisant of what she was signing.
“The Committee noted that her offending behaviour took place a significantly long time ago, when Dr Surdila was young and inexperienced and before she had qualified as a veterinary surgeon.
"There had never been a risk to animals or the public, she had demonstrated significant insight into her failures and exhibited genuine remorse.
"The Committee was satisfied that it was highly unlikely she would ever commit such an offence again.
“In light of the lack of aggravating factors and the extensive mitigation in this case, the Committee concluded that it was appropriate and proportionate to reprimand Dr Surdila and to warn her of the need to ensure she reads and understands all documents that require her signature.”
The Committee’s full findings can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
As part of its review, the College had planned a series of focus groups of veterinary surgeons and nurses across the UK. However, these have had to be delayed both because of social distancing rules and because of the pressures that practice teams are currently working under. However, the agency tasked with hosting the focus groups is now exploring alternative options and it is hoped there will be a revised timetable soon.
In the meantime, the College says it now plans to commission an additional independent agency to survey veterinary surgeons about their experience of remote prescribing during lockdown.
In March, RCVS Council agreed to temporarily allow veterinary surgeons to prescribe prescription-only veterinary medicines remotely, without first having physically examined the animal, subject to a number of conditions and safeguards being in place.
This position is due for review by 30th June, and the College will be looking for feedback and data from veterinary surgeons about your experience of remote prescribing, in order to determine whether these arrangements can continue, with or without any extra safeguards.
Because remote prescribing is also one of the most important aspects of the planned under care review, feedback gathered now will help inform future discussions too.
RCVS President Niall Connell said: “We recognise the current conditions that veterinary practices are working under in no way represent normal practice life. Most practices will not have been set up to offer remote services and remote prescribing in a way that they might have chosen, given sufficient time and appropriate detailed guidance, if indeed there are any future guidance changes after the review.
"However, we feel it would be remiss of us not to seize the opportunity arising from this current crisis to ask about the experiences – good or bad – of those on the frontline of clinical veterinary practice in providing remote services to their clients.
"Whilst this will be no substitute for the formal evidence gathered by the research agency in due course, whatever data and feedback we can collate from veterinary practices at this unique time for our professions will, I’m sure, be extremely valuable to our ongoing discussions."
Jane (or John) Doe was charged with having stolen midazolam, butorphanol and promethazine hydrochloride from their practice for use other than for veterinary purposes, making false clinical records concerning the use of drugs on their own dogs to disguise the fact that the drugs were instead being used for non-veterinary uses, and drawing up medication taken from the practice into a syringe for the purpose of self-medicating.
In addition, they were charged that their conduct was dishonest.
The Committee found it proven that Jane/John Doe had taken approximately 150 vials of midazolam, 87 ampoules, 112 tablets and one elixir bottle of promethazine hydrocholoride, and 0.2mls of butorphanol together with Iml of midazolam for their dog at a time when their dog was, in fact, dead.
The Committee also found it proven that the defendant had drawn up medication for the purpose of self-medicating, and had created false clinical records.
In deciding the sanction, the Committee concluded that the respondent had abused their position of trust, that their actions were dishonest, prolonged and repeated in nature, and undermined the reputation of the profession as a whole.
Therefore the only appropriate action was removal from the Register.
Unusually, the RCVS did not issue a press release about this case, as it normally does.
There was also a protracted delay between the hearing and the report of the hearing being published on the College website.
Furthermore, when it was finally published, the report had been redacted to remove any reference to the name, gender or location of the respondent.
When asked why, the College said: "Matters of a highly confidential nature arose following the hearing which led to a delay in the decisions being published.
“The decisions have been redacted and we cannot provide the reasons for the redactions as that would necessarily involve disclosure of confidential and personal information.
"However, the circumstances are considered to be exceptional and the College’s decision to make the redactions was only made following very careful consideration of evidence provided to the RCVS.
"The decision has been published on the RCVS website in its redacted form and in view of the timeframe and the circumstances, it has not been considered appropriate to issue a press release.”
CommentThe College will for sure have had very good reasons for redacting the name of the respondent in this case.
One has to assume there must have been a very real threat to the respondent’s life, and under those circumstances, confidentiality is absolutely right and proper.
However, whatever the reason, secrecy is never a good look, especially when it comes in the form of a cape worn by a regulator.
So it is frustrating to hear that the College has again made a rod for its own back, when it could so easily have included a very general one-line explanation for why it felt redaction was necessary, without compromising the individual’s confidentiality.
It would have been enough, for example, just to say that the College felt there was a risk to life. People would accept that.
The webinar was hosted by RCVS Senior Vice-President Dr Melissa Donald, with Standards Committee Chair and Junior Vice-President Linda Belton, Registrar Eleanor Ferguson, and Head of Standards Gemma Kingswell.
The panel gave an overview of the main changes for the guidance, which comes into effect on 1st September, the considerations to take into account when prescribing POM-Vs remotely, the circumstances under which POM-Vs cannot be prescribed remotely, the prescription of antibiotics, antifungals, antiparasitics, and antivirals, and how the guidance will be enforced.
The webinar also dealt with issues raised in a previous webinar, including a query about prescribing under the cascade and an update on the position when prescribing based on cultures and sensitivities.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSTZKdbVD8g
For further information about the new guidance, including a range of practice-based scenarios and FAQs, visit: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/advice-and-guidance/under-care-new-guidance/
Questions about the under care guidance can be sent to advice@rcvs.org.uk
RCVS Council member and Chief Veterinary Officer Professor Nigel Gibbens has been made a Commander of the Order of the British Empire in the New Year’s Honours list for 2016.
Professor Gibbens (pictured right), who was appointed by the Privy Council to RCVS Council in 2008, has been recognised for his services to the veterinary profession and animal welfare.
Over on the other side of the world, Professor Norman Williamson, Chair of the Veterinary Schools Accreditation Advisory Committee of the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC), has been appointed an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit, following an application supported by the RCVS.
Professor Williamson has been working with the College as part of the veterinary education accreditation process, taking part in university visitations both in the UK and abroad.
Bradley Viner, President of the RCVS, said: "Many congratulations to Professor Nigel Gibbens for his appointment as a CBE. As CVO, Nigel has made great strides in shaping and influencing animal health and welfare policy throughout the United Kingdom and strengthening the relationship between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the College and the profession at large.
"As an organisation we were also very happy to write in support of the application for Professor Williamson to become an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit and it is gladdening to see that his contribution to international cooperation in veterinary education has been recognised."
Photograph courtesy RCVS
The nomination period runs up until 5pm on Tuesday 31 January 2017 and, in order to stand, candidates need to submit a nomination form, a short biography and personal statement, and supply a high resolution digital photo.
Each candidate also needs two nominators: veterinary surgeons who are on the College’s Register but are not current RCVS Council members.
Dr Chris Tufnell, RCVS President, discusses RCVS Council and various committees in a video urging members of the profession to put themselves forward:
The election period starts around mid-March and will run until 5pm on Friday 28 April 2017. Ballot papers will be sent to veterinary surgeons who are eligible to vote in the week commencing Monday 13 March 2017.
Nomination forms, guidance notes and frequently asked questions for prospective RCVS Council candidates can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil17.
The report is the culmination of the work of a joint RCVS and VSC BAME Student Support Working Group, set up to explore key issues in supporting BAME veterinary students during their studies.
The Working Group made a total of 14 recommendations, which included:
Stephanie-Rae Flicker is a recent Royal Veterinary College (RVC) graduate who co-chaired the Working Group alongside Professor Rob Pettitt from the University of Liverpool.
She said: “I hope this encourages and supports our veterinary institutions to actively implement change regarding discrimination faced during studies and placements, nurturing role models and helping affected students develop sense of belonging and community during their studies and beyond.
"Many thanks to all that have contributed to the completion of this Report – we hope the recommendations have a lasting impact, and benefit those both already present and yet to enter our profession."
RCVS/VSC BAME Student Support Working Group Report.
A number of candidates have already come to the VetSurgeon.org forums to discuss their candidacy and help voters decide whether they're worthy of your vote; their individual discussion threads are linked to below.
The College points out that there is a new voting platform this year, designed to make it easier to vote online.
The new system includes regular personalised email reminders from Electoral Reform Services which include a link to the voting platform and the ability to log in securely straight away, without having to refer to the ballot paper in order to find the security codes. Using the email address provided the College, veterinary surgeons can also ask ERS to reissue the security codes if needs be.
Voting for both of this year’s elections opened on Friday 24 March with an email sent to all those eligible to vote for whom the College holds an email address. Ballot papers have also been despatched to all eligible voters along with booklets containing the candidates’ biographies, contact details and manifestos. Instructions on how to vote online and by post are included with the ballot papers.
There are 16 candidates contesting six places on RCVS Council, including three existing Council members eligible for re-election and 13 candidates not currently on Council. They are:
All votes must be cast, either online or by post, by 5pm on Friday 28 April 2017.
Once again this year the College invited members of both professions to ‘Quiz the candidates’ by putting their questions directly to all those standing for election. Some of the key themes this year included Brexit, complementary/ alternative therapies, the structure of the veterinary industry, out-of-hours work and veterinary nurse remuneration among others.
Each candidate was invited to choose two questions to answer from all those received and produce a video recording of their answers.
These videos, along with biographies and statements for each candidate, are available to view on the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote17.
This was the sixth time that Mr Warwick Seymour-Hamilton had applied for restoration after being removed from the Register in June 1994, the reasons for which related to the condition of his practice premises and his record-keeping following an inspection by the RCVS. His most recent restoration hearing took place in May 2017.
In his application Mr Seymour-Hamilton said that he wanted to be restored to the Register to aid his research into herbal medicines and, during the course of the hearing, he also challenged some of the evidence given to the Committee in the June 1994 hearing. In particular he challenged the assertion that his practice was open when it was inspected by the RCVS as, he submitted that, he had retired three weeks’ prior to the inspection due to ill-health.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton told the Committee that he did not wish to return to clinical practice but wished to restore his membership of the RCVS in order to prescribe his own herbal treatments and to obtain peer review that would allow his treatments to be licensed. Furthermore, he produced, during the hearing, a continuing professional development (CPD) record card in which he had logged 1,438 hours of CPD in 2017.
In considering his application for restoration the Committee dismissed his challenge to the details of his original hearing in June 1994.
Ms Judith Way, Chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee has noted that this issue is ancient. It is not for this Committee to consider it. Moreover the finding of the Committee represents a determination which was not challenged by the applicant until one of the more recent restoration applications. He never appealed it. Nor did he attend at the original hearing. It acknowledges that the premises could well have been closed given their condition, but whether they were or not is not for it [the Committee] to decide. It is quite possible the applicant has persuaded himself of the position. This is not an issue which is a persuasive factor in this application."
Regarding Mr Seymour-Hamilton’s contention that he would use his RCVS registered status to further his research into herbal treatments Ms Way said: "The Committee accepted there were no direct public protection issues which caused it concern, although it did retain some anxiety that the applicant’s commitment to herbal medicine could govern the way in which he would wish to care for an animal. A more rounded veterinary approach, which involved a full evaluation of an animal’s condition, a coherent diagnosis and a subsequent discussion about treatment with the client is called for."
Turning to his CPD she added: "His CPD now has a bias for herbal medicine as does his extensive reading. The Committee was not satisfied that his skills are up-to-date and that he could practise veterinary medicine safely. The Committee was not satisfied that he would approach a sick animal with the full and rounded approach required of a veterinary surgeon. Nor did his confidence in this regard allay the concerns of the Committee. He expressed belief in himself on the basis of his practice which came to an end some 24 years ago."
The Committee did acknowledge that Mr Seymour-Hamilton’s removal from the Register had a considerable impact on him and that, not only is he ashamed of it, but he believes it is frustrating his ability to advance the cause of herbal medicine.
In conclusion, Ms Way said: "Taking all these matters into account, the Committee has concluded that the applicant has not satisfied it on all of the evidence that he is fit to be restored to the Register and so this application is refused."
The Working Group, which was formed in January, is chaired by Nigel Gibbens (pictured right) and composed of representatives from BVA specialist divisions and affiliate groups, and others with relevant expertise and knowledge.
As the Association says, the RCVS review will potentially have a far-reaching impact on the future of the veterinary profession, animal health and welfare, and the relationships vets have with their clients.
Of particular concern are the impact of remote prescribing on animal welfare and how limited-service providers (ie those offering online consultations only) will affect the commercial viability of full-service providers.
It is therefore hugely important that the BVA's response represents the opinions and evidence of as many people in the profession as possible.
Information about the BVA Working Group, including the minutes of meetings held so far and the 'themes' document which reflects the group's current thoughts, can be found here: https://www.bva.co.uk/about-us/our-structure/working-groups/
Nigel said: "I encourage you to look at this information carefully, and feed in any evidence that you wish the group to consider along with your thoughts on the content of the BVA response to the RCVS. You can do this via BVA’s Head of Policy & Governance Amelia Findon (ameliaf@bva.co.uk) who will ensure that comments are collated and considered by our group.
"The breadth of opinion across the profession means that the BVA response cannot please everyone, nor should it attempt to. However, it will be based on available evidence and a good understanding of the full scope of views. BVA policy will thus reflect the majority view whilst embracing the positive potential of technological innovations that will inevitably change the way we interact with clients. I urge you to take the time to consider the implications and let us have your thoughts."
At the outset of the hearing, Mr Kashiv, from Vets & Pets, Broxbourne, denied all aspects of the charges against him. During the course of the inquiry, some heads of charge were not pursued and some he admitted, leaving the remaining heads of charge to be determined.
The charges concerned the treatment of a Scottish Terrier, called Tanzy, whose owner, Mrs Greenhill, brought her in to see Mr Kashiv on 5 March 2015. Mrs Greenhill was concerned about blood in Tanzy’s urine and swellings in her mammary glands. After carrying out a cytopathology test, Mr Kashiv advised Mrs Greenhill that Tanzy would require surgery to remove the mammary glands. There were no further tests conducted, and no alternatives to surgery suggested.
On 13 March another veterinary surgeon at Vets & Pets therefore undertook a right-side mammary strip on Tanzy, discharging her the following day. On 17 March Mrs Greenhill brought Tanzy back in for a post-operative check and was seen by a locum veterinary surgeon, who found her to be in good condition.
On 20 March Mrs Greenhill then became concerned about Tanzy’s deteriorating condition and returned her to see Mr Kashiv. He admitted Tanzy for observation over the weekend but did not conduct any further tests at that stage, apart from radiography on 22 March. The hospitalisation records were of poor quality and substantially incomplete.
On 23 March Mr Kashiv then informed Mrs Greenhill that Tanzy could be discharged, although he recommended an MRI scan to assist in the diagnosis; this was declined on cost grounds. He did not however explain clearly to Mrs Greenhill that Tanzy’s prognosis was bleak, and did not give adequate home care instructions.
Tanzy continued to deteriorate, and on 24 March Mrs Greenhill took Tanzy to the RSPCA Harmsworth Hospital where a veterinary surgeon conducted tests which showed that Tanzy was in renal failure. The veterinary surgeon then called Mrs Greenhill and recommended that Tanzy was put to sleep, which was then performed in Mrs Greenhill’s presence.
The Committee found that Mr Kashiv had failed to conduct the necessary investigations when Tanzy was admitted from 20 to 23 March 2015, being satisfied that, by the time Tanzy had been hospitalised for a period of three days, it was mandatory for a blood test to have been performed, given her marked deterioration.
The Committee also found while Mr Kashiv did express his opinion that Tanzy’s prognosis was poor, he did not give the full explanation required in the circumstances of this case to enable Mrs Greenhill to understand fully the prognosis. The Committee also considered that Tanzy was not in a fit state to be discharged on 23 March 2015, and that he had failed to keep sufficiently clear and/or detailed and/or accurate records.
After full consideration, the Committee found that Mr Kashiv’s actions amounted to serious professional misconduct, and was satisfied that his actions fell far short of the conduct to be expected of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon in respect of heads of charge 1, 2 and 3 but not 4.
Although it was concerned "about the culture of care in the practice, in particular not having in place proper protocols and procedures and without necessary support from properly trained staff", in deciding on appropriate sanction, the Committee was satisfied that there were "a number of serious misjudgements by Mr Kashiv in this case".
The Committee decided to postpone judgement for a period of two years, whilst recommending that Mr Kashiv agree to undertake a structured programme to benefit his clinical practice including a Personal Development Plan, mentoring, practice visits, additional CPD and regular reports to the Disciplinary Committee.
Non-compliance with these undertakings may result in the hearing being resumed at a date earlier than the two-year period.
Stuart Drummond, Chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee considers that Mr Kashiv is a dedicated veterinary surgeon, as evidenced by the large number of testimonials, and that he provides a valuable service to the community, particularly with rescue animals.
"Nevertheless, the Committee considers that there were a number of fundamental failings in Mr Kashiv’s clinical competence which are required to be addressed during the period of postponement. For the reasons set out above the Committee considers that Mr Kashiv’s clinical practice will benefit from a structured programme over the period of postponement, whilst protecting the welfare of animals, maintaining public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct."
For the full charges, findings and decisions, see: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/
Those veterinary surgeons being audited are being asked to share their records for 2013 to 2015 by either allowing the College to access their online Professional Development Record or by sending the RCVS a copy of their CPD record cards. The deadline for sharing records is Friday 14 October 2016.
The audit is focused on six groups:
If any of the veterinary surgeons who have been audited are found to be non-compliant (ie. less than 105 hours of CPD over a rolling three-year period), they will be asked to explain why and send a plan stating how they will make up the hours in order to become compliant.
The College says it is also keen to remind veterinary surgeons that CPD encompasses a wide range of recorded activities, which can be clinical or non-clinical, including private reading/study, webinars, mentoring, clinical audit and discussion groups as well as attending seminars and workshops.
More information about what counts as CPD can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/cpd
Those with any questions about the auditing process or what constitutes CPD can contact Jenny Soreskog-Turp, Education Officer at the College, on cpd@rcvs.org.uk
Ed's note: Don't forget to claim your VetSurgeon.org CPD certificate detailing time you've recorded reading content and taking part in qualifying discussions on the site. Click 'My Account' and then the 'CPD' tab to view your records and create your certificate.
Professor Susan Dawson (pictured right), Chair of the Mind Matters Taskforce, will introduce the event and will be followed by the symposium’s plenary speaker, Rory O’Connor, Professor of Health Psychology at the University of Glasgow and President of the International Association for Suicide Prevention.
Rory's talk: ‘When It is Darkest: Understanding Suicide Risk’ will draw upon his research and work on the psychological processes which precipitate suicidal behaviour and self-harm, an area of expertise that has seen him advise the Scottish Government, as well as other national and international organisations, on suicide prevention strategies.
The next presentation will be from Dr Victoria Crossley from the Royal Veterinary College and Navaratnam Partheeban, co-founder of the British Veterinary Ethnicity & Diversity Society (BVEDS), on their research into the mental health impact of racism and discrimination on Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) veterinary surgeons.
They'll be followed by Professor Neil Greenberg and Dr Victoria Williamson from King’s College London, who will talk about their research into the impact of ‘moral injury’ on the mental health and wellbeing of vets.
The day will then split into different research streams with presentations on a variety of topics including: the impact of cyberbullying and harassment; the wellbeing of veterinary interns and residents; stigma and stress in veterinary nursing; mental health awareness training in the undergraduate veterinary curriculum; and the relationship between ‘patient safety culture’ and staff burnout.
Lisa Quigley, Mind Matters Manager, said: “As with previous years the Mind Matters Mental Health Research Symposium promises to be a very informative and important day in terms of international researchers coming together to share their research, their conclusions, areas for further work and study, and best practice.
"Some of the topics we will be discussing, such as suicide, will be difficult, but research into issues affecting the international veterinary community is a vital first step to putting in place strategies and support mechanisms to help those in need. This is why research will be one of the key strategic priorities for the Mind Matters Initiative and our forthcoming actions in this area will be published later this year in our Mind Matters Initiative Strategic Plan.
“I would like to thank Dr Rosie Allister, a veterinary mental health researcher from the University of Edinburgh and manager of Vetlife Helpline, for putting together an excellent programme.
"As with previous years we are also offering free attendance of the symposium to those who have lived experience of mental ill-health, those who are currently not working, and veterinary and veterinary nursing students. If you have any queries about the event, please don’t hesitate to contact me on l.quigley@rcvs.org.uk to discuss further.”
Registration for those not entitled to a free ticket is £10.
To register for the event visit: www.vetmindmatters.org/events.
The final deadline for paying the fee was 31 May 2017, with the 339 who did not pay being removed on 1 June 2017, compared to 296 last year.
A list of those who have not paid their fee has been published on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/registration/about-the-rcvs-register/) and the College is encouraging practices to check the list to be sure that no employees are named. Those who have been removed from the Register but have subsequently paid to be restored are not named on the list.
Anyone removed from the Register can no longer call themselves a veterinary surgeon, use the postnominals MRCVS or carry out acts of veterinary surgery – to do so would be in breach of the Veterinary Surgeons Act.
The College is also reminding veterinary surgeons that to complete their registration in full they need to confirm they are compliant with the continuing professional development (CPD) requirement and complete the criminal disclosures form. Both of these are required by the Code of Professional Conduct and can be completed on the ‘My Account’ area www.rcvs.org.uk/login.
Anyone with queries about completing the registration process should contact the RCVS Registration Department on 020 7202 0707 or registration@rcvs.org.uk.