The Disciplinary Committee, chaired by Mr Stuart Drummond, considered six charges against Dr Gunn.
The first charge alleged that, early in 2018, Dr Gunn failed to provide appropriate and adequate care to the dog. In particular, having removed a mass from the right thorax, he undertook an excess number of surgical procedures, including under general anaesthetic, within a 13 day period; performed these procedures without offering alternative treatments or discussing referral with the owners; failed to recognise infected wounds; and administered an antibiotic when the dog was infected with MRSA and E-coli.
The second charge alleged that Dr Gunn failed to communicate adequately, openly and honestly with the owners of the terrier on multiple occasions between 16 January and 3 February 2018. This included but was not limited to: failing to provide the owners with an estimation of fees; failing to inform them in advance of the procedures performed; failing to inform them of options for treatment; and failing to inform them that the terrier had an infection when he knew or ought to have known that she did.
The third charge alleged that Dr Gunn failed to obtain informed consent in relation to the further procedures performed on the terrier in charge one.
The fourth charge alleged that Dr Gunn failed to maintain adequate clinical records in relation to the management of the dog, and that he failed to record the prescription and administration of drugs to treat the terrier.
The fifth charge alleged that Dr Gunn indicated to the owners that euthanasia was the most appropriate treatment option and/or that there were no other realistic treatment options, when this was not the case and when he ought to have known this was not the case.
The sixth charge alleged that, during the course of a referral of the terrier to another practice, Dr Gunn failed to provide an adequate history of his management of the dog and that he informed the practice that the owners had no finances when this was not true, amounting to an incomplete account of his dealings with the owners and to a breach of their confidence.
At the outset of the hearing the respondent admitted to a number of the allegations within the main six charges, which were found proved by the Committee.
Of the charges not admitted to, a number were found proved and the Committee then went on to consider whether or not Dr Gunn’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In considering the aggravating factors, the Committee took into account that the dog’s suffering was prolonged because of the persistence of Dr Gunn in pursuing a single ineffective treatment approach.
With regards to mitigating factors, the Committee found that Dr Gunn was remorseful as to his actions, that there was no financial motivation on the part of Dr Gunn in respect of his treatment of the terrier, and that there is a low risk of repetition because Dr Gunn has sought to learn from this experience. A number of relevant and high-quality testimonials were also provided by colleagues and many satisfied owners on behalf of Dr Gunn.
Considering both the aggravating and mitigating factors, the Committee was satisfied that Dr Gunn’s conduct fell far below the standard expected of a registered veterinary surgeon for a number of the charges.
The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Dr Gunn. The Committee was satisfied that the misconduct found proved was in relation to the treatment of one dog only and therefore it was at the lower end of the spectrum. However, the conduct took place over a prolonged period of two weeks which in the Committee’s view required a sanction. In such circumstances, and with the significant mitigation, the Committee decided that the appropriate and proportionate sanction was to reprimand Dr Gunn and to warn him about his future conduct.
Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Mr Stuart Drummond said: "The Committee concluded that the effect of a reprimand alongside the Committee’s findings on disgraceful conduct in a professional respect was a sufficient and proportionate sanction. The Committee found Dr Gunn to have developed sufficient insight into his failings and it was satisfied that the disciplinary process had been a salutary experience and that he is very unlikely to pose a risk to animals in the future or to contravene professional standards.
"The Committee decided that a warning as to future conduct was necessary to reduce the risk of any repetition of any similar conduct for Dr Gunn in the future. It therefore concluded that the sanction of a reprimand and warning would be a sufficient in the circumstances of this case having taking into consideration all the powerful personal mitigation."
The complete list of charges and the Committee’s full facts and findings can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Chair of the Standards Committee, Dr Melissa Donald, said: “We were very aware of the likelihood that both practice staff and clients will increasingly have to isolate over the coming weeks due to direct infection or positive contacts, particularly with the rise in cases amongst school children.
“Added to this, we know there are already workforce pressures across the profession, which will be exacerbated by reduced staffing levels over the Christmas and New Year period.
“We therefore felt it was appropriate to reintroduce these temporary remote prescribing measures at this time to help relieve pressure on practising professionals, and to provide them with the means to continue to look after the health and welfare of their patients in all circumstances.”
As before, the temporary dispensation is subject to the specific guidance found in FAQ4 (www.rcvs.org.uk/covidfaq4), including that veterinary surgeons must be able provide a 24/7 follow-up service involving physical examination, for example where the animal does not improve, or suffers an adverse reaction, or deteriorates, subsequent to the remote prescription of medicines.
The Committee agreed that the position should be reviewed in February 2022 at its next meeting.
The RCVS has announced the candidates standing in the RCVS Council and Veterinary Nurses Council elections this year and is inviting veterinary surgeons and nurses to put their questions to them directly for a video reply.
There are eleven candidates standing for election to RCVS Council in 2015. Overall there are six men and five women, which include two existing Council members eligible for re-election and nine new candidates. They are:
Three veterinary nurses are standing in this year's VN Council elections, including one existing VN Council member eligible for re-election. They are:
Ballot papers and candidates' details are due to be posted to all veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses eligible to vote during the week commencing 16th March, and all votes must be cast, either online or by post, by 5pm on Friday, 24 April 2015.
Once again the College is inviting members of both professions to 'Quiz the candidates' by putting their questions directly to all those standing for election. Each candidate will then be invited to choose two questions to answer from all those received, and produce a video or audio recording of their answers. All recordings will be published on the RCVS website on Thursday 19 March.
Vets and nurses should email their question (NB one per person) to vetvote15@rcvs.org.uk or VNvote15@rcvs.org.uk, or post it on twitter using the hashtags #vetvote15 or #VNvote15, respectively, by midday on Monday 9 March.
Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar said: "It's important that members of the veterinary professions choose who they want to sit on their governing Councils, so we always try to make the elections as interesting and engaging as possible.
"This year, we hope the provision of short videos, to accompany the usual written information, will encourage people to find out a little more about all those standing for election, and then use their vote."
Mr Rushton was convicted of sexual assault after pleading guilty at Wood Green Crown Court in December 2022.
He was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, made subject to a restraining order and a 10-year sexual harm prevention order as well as being placed on the Sex Offenders Register for 10 years.
He was also ordered to pay £3,000 costs and a £140 victims’ surcharge.
Mr Rushton did not attend the RCVS hearing, where the facts of the charge were proven by the certificate of conviction and the judge’s sentencing remarks.
In considering whether the conviction rendered Mr Rushton unfit to practise veterinary medicine, the Committee considered that the case involved the sexual assault of a vulnerable woman who was also a professional colleague, and was a serious abuse of trust, reflected in the custodial sentence.
Dr Neil Slater MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “It was evident from the judge’s sentencing remarks that [the victim] had been seriously affected by the knowledge of what had occurred on that evening.
"That knowledge was bound, in itself, to be very distressing and according to the victim’s impact statement had a long- lasting impact on the victim’s self-esteem, resilience and relationship with others.
"The victim’s level of distress can only have been increased by the knowledge that the respondent had filmed and/or photographed his activity while she was unconscious and that the images were included on a memory stick which contained a number of other voyeuristic images.”
"The Committee was satisfied that the respondent’s behaviour had caused [the victim] significant psychological injury and carried with it a risk of causing such injury.
“The Committee was also satisfied that [the victim] was especially vulnerable because of the significant quantity of alcohol that she had consumed.
"In the circumstances that evolved, she was in the respondent’s care.
"The respondent abused the position of trust and responsibility that he occupied.
"He was a senior colleague, at a professional conference.
"Instead of taking appropriate steps to secure the welfare of [the victim], he used the position in which he found himself to engage in predatory sexual misconduct.
"Furthermore, his behaviour was opportunistic and, as the judge said, “clearly driven by [his] sexual desires."
Taking into account these factors, the Committee found that Dr Rushton was unfit to practise and next considered the sanction.
The Committee found no mitigating factors regarding the conviction but did take into account the fact there had been no previous regulatory findings against him.
In deciding the sanction, the Committee also noted that there was little evidence before them that Dr Rushton had shown serious insight into the impact of his offending.
Neil added: “In this context the Committee also noted that the respondent maintained a plea of not guilty until three days before a rearranged trial was due to take place, and subsequently advanced an account of what he said was his relationship with [the victim] which the judge found to be false.
“Taking all of these factors into account, the Committee is satisfied that removal from the register is the only proportionate outcome to this case.
"This sanction is necessary to declare and uphold appropriate standards of conduct for members of the veterinary profession and to maintain public confidence in the profession.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
Organisations including British Veterinary Association (BVA) and the Society of Practising Veterinary Surgeons (SPVS) also responded to the consultation on behalf of members.
The College’s Education Department is now in the process of analysing the consultation responses.
Christine Warman, Head of Education at the RCVS, said: "We are very pleased with the number of responses we have received to this consultation which demonstrates what an important issue CPD, and our approach to it going forward, is for the profession. I am also glad that there was a good split of responses between veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses as it is important we get as wide a range of views as possible from a wide range of individuals. I’d like to thank everyone who took the time to give us their views.
"Over the coming weeks we will be going through each response with a view to preparing proposals on the next steps for our CPD Working Party’s September meeting."
Proposals are expected to go to the Education Committee and to VN Council in October and then to the November meeting of RCVS Council.
Dr Russell, 64, who waived his right to attend the hearing, was convicted in 2023 of three offences: making indecent photographs of a child, possessing 2,280 prohibited images of a child and possessing 109 extreme pornographic images that included moving images that were grossly offensive.
After pleading guilty to making indecent photographs/pseudo-photographs of a child, possessing a prohibited image of a child, and possessing extreme pornographic image/images portraying sexual acts with an animal, Dr Russell was sentenced at Winchester Crown Court to a two-year community order, a 30-day Rehabilitation Activity Requirement, 150 hours of community service and a forfeiture and destruction order of Seagate Drive, Toshiba hard drive and Lenovo tablet.
In addition, he was required to register with the police for 5 years and made subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for five years.
He was also required to pay prosecution costs of £425 and £60 victim surcharge.
Counsel for the College submitted to the Disciplinary Committee that the nature and circumstances of the offences rendered Dr Russell unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
The Committee considered there to be several aggravating factors including, actual (albeit indirect) injury to an animal or child; the risk of harm to an animal or child; sexual misconduct; premeditated conduct; and, that the offences involved vulnerable children and animals.
Neil Slater, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee has reached the conclusion that Dr Russell’s behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon, namely grave offences of a sexual nature.
"Dr Russell’s behaviour was so serious that removal of professional status and the rights and privileges accorded to that status is considered to be the only means of protecting the wider public interest and of maintaining confidence in the profession.
“The Committee has not taken this decision lightly, and, lest it be misinterpreted, it has not taken it in order to satisfy any notional public demand for blame and punishment.
"It has taken the decision because, in its judgment, the reputation of the profession has to be at the forefront of its thinking and ultimately this is more important than the interests of Dr Russell.
"The decision is not simply based on the fact that these offences were of a sexual nature but because they were repeated over a significant period of time and at a time when Dr Russell must have known, on his own plea of guilty, that what he was doing was wrong.
"Further, the Committee can discern no evidence that Dr Russell has insight into the gravity of the offence he has committed.
"The Committee has therefore directed the Registrar to remove his name from the Register forthwith.”
Dr Russell has 28 days from being notified of his removal from the Register to lodge an appeal with Privy Council.
The nomination period closes at 5pm on Wednesday 31 January 2018 with the election period set to start in mid-March and close at 5pm on Friday 27 April 2018.
Candidates need to submit a nomination form, contact details, a short biography and candidate statement and supply a high-resolution digital photograph to use in print and online materials.
In order for a candidacy to be accepted they will also need two nominators who should be veterinary surgeons on the RCVS Register but who are not current members of RCVS Council.
Registered addresses and original (hard copy) signatures of both the nominee and the proposers are required on the form in order for it to be valid.
The RCVS is also reminding candidates that the College is currently preparing for a change in its governance arrangements, including a reduction in the size of Council, as outlined in a Legislative Reform Order (LRO) that was agreed by Council members in March 2016.
As it stands, members of the profession are still electing six candidates to RCVS Council in the 2018 elections. However, if the LRO completes the legislative process and is passed by both Houses of Parliament, then only the three candidates with the most votes will take up their places as members of RCVS Council.
There will be no elections to VN Council this year as a decision was made to reduce the number of elected members.
More information on how to stand as a candidate for RCVS Council, as well as nomination forms, guidance notes and frequently asked questions, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil18
The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has directed that the name of a veterinary surgeon who had been practising in Essex be removed from the RCVS Register, having found him guilty of attempting to obtain medicines dishonestly.
James Alexander Lockyear, a graduate from Pretoria University in South Africa, was charged with two offences. The case was heard in his absence, although the Committee did not draw any adverse inference from this. One charge concerned his attempted purchase of steroids from a pharmacy in Colchester by dishonestly representing that the medicine was for legitimate veterinary use. The second charge related to several instances of what the Committee referred to as "inappropriate and unprofessional behaviour", including showing an offensive image to another staff member on a mobile phone, placing the testicle of a castrated dog in his mouth and the misuse of an endotracheal tube.
All of the incidents had taken place between April 2008 and September 2009, while Mr Lockyear was practising as a locum veterinary surgeon at St Runwald's Veterinary Surgery, Colchester, Essex.
The Disciplinary Committee heard evidence from a pharmacist, Mr Noble, to whom Mr Lockyear had presented an incomplete veterinary prescription for 12 ampoules of Sustanon, a prescription-only anabolic steroid for humans, and a further pharmacist, Mr Foskett MRPharmS, who outlined his suspicions that the steroids were in fact for Mr Lockyear's personal use (Sustanon is a substance which can potentially be misused in relation to body-building). Mr Lockyear had originally claimed the drugs were for general stock at the practice; he later returned with a second prescription, for double the amount of Sustanon, claiming it was for his own dog; later again, he said the prescription was for a friend's dog.
The Committee also heard evidence from the veterinary owner of the practice, a veterinary nurse and a student veterinary nurse working in the practice team, and from Dr Maddison MRCVS, an expert on small animal clinical pharmacology. Dr Maddison informed the Committee that there was a veterinary alternative to Sustanon, so it was not necessary for that drug to have been sought by Mr Lockyear. She was also of the view that Sustanon would not have been suitable to treat the ailments for which Mr Lockyear claimed it was to be used.
The Committee found Mr Lockyear guilty of the first charge - that is attempting to obtain medicines dishonestly. Chairing the Disciplinary Committee, Mrs Alison Bruce, said: "Whilst it was a one-off incident, it is conduct which falls far short of that which is expected of a member of the profession. It involves serious dishonesty; it represents an abuse of a veterinary surgeon's authority to prescribe drugs; it is conduct which tends to undermine public trust in the profession, and the honesty of its members; it is conduct which compromised other professionals, the pharmacists involved, and undermined the trust which ought to exist between pharmacists and veterinary surgeons generally, in the important area of drug prescription." The Committee therefore directed that Mr Lockyear's name be removed from the Register.
Regarding the second charge, the Committee was most concerned about the incident relating to the dog's testicles, which it felt offended against Mr Lockyear's duty to treat with respect all animals which were his patients. Taking the three incidents as a whole, the Committee felt that Mr Lockyear should be seriously criticised for behaviour that was "unprofessional... juvenile, inappropriate, disgusting and offensive". However, they felt that the conduct was not malicious, and did not occur in the presence of a member of the public, so concluded that this did not amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
Mr Adams was convicted at Gorey District Court, County Wexford, Republic of Ireland in March 2015 for:
Nine offences of prescribing animal remedies to animals not under his care;
Five offences of forging entries in official animal remedies records owned by farmers to suggest he had made visits to farms when he had not;
Seven offences of dispensing a prescription-only animal remedy but not preparing a veterinary prescription containing the details of the animals;
Two offences of failing to affix labels in the required form to prescription-only items when selling or supplying animal remedies;
Six offences of failing to annotate the dispensed prescriptions with the word ‘dispensed’ and failing to sign and date them;
Three offences of failing to keep a record or purchases and sales (including quantities administered) in respect of each incoming and outgoing transaction; and
Two offences of selling animal remedies on a wholesale basis without an animal wholesaler’s licence.
The charges related to treatment of animals not under his care throughout 2012 and 2013 which were investigated by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine in the Republic of Ireland.
In relation to these convictions Mr Adams received a 12-month prison sentence, suspended for two years, was fined a total of €40,000 and ordered to pay costs of €16,400.
Following his conviction his conduct was considered by the Veterinary Council of Ireland’s (VCI) Fitness to Practice Committee and, in September 2017, the VCI a sanction of 12 months’ suspension from its Register. This sanction was upheld by the High Court in the Republic of Ireland in November 2017.
As well as being a registered veterinary surgeon in the Republic of Ireland, Mr Adams was also on the UK-practising Register with the RCVS, so his convictions were considered under the College’s own complaints and disciplinary process.
At the outset of the hearing, Mr Adams admitted the charges and accepted his convictions rendered him unfit to practise. The College also asserted that Mr Adams' convictions rendered him unfit to practise, noting a number of aggravating factors including the risk of injury to animals, dishonesty, premeditation, financial gain and misconduct sustained and repeated over time.
In considering the College’s case and Mr Adams’ own admissions, the Disciplinary Committee agreed that his conduct rendered him unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
Professor Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee found the conduct to be at the serious end of the spectrum for such misconduct, it being systematic, prolonged and illegal conduct relating to the supply of animal remedies which posed a significant risk to human and animal health.
"Accordingly, the Committee found that the convictions which led to these charges cumulatively render Mr Adams unfit to practise."
In considering the sanction, the Disciplinary Committee took into account a number of mitigating factors including that he had been practising since 1993 and had no previous disciplinary findings, had made open and frank admissions at all stages to the College and had practised between April 2013, when the matters first came to light, and February 2018, when he was suspended by the Veterinary Council of Ireland, without incident.
It also considered the conditions that were imposed upon Mr Adams by the VCI in terms of notification that he was intending to return to practice, auditing of his practice, his continuing professional development (CPD) and having to undertake personal and professional support programmes and arrangements for professional mentorship for one year after his return to practice.
In view of the sanctions already imposed by the court in Ireland, and his suspension by the VCI, the Disciplinary Committee decided that a period of two years’ suspension from the UK Register of Veterinary Surgeons was the appropriate sanction.
Professor Barr said: "Whilst Mr Adams would be able to practise in the Republic of Ireland before he was able to practise in the United Kingdom again, the Committee considered that the conditions attached to his supervision in Ireland meant that he would be subject to close supervision before he was allowed to practise again in the United Kingdom and that only a longer period of suspension would allow this to happen.
"The Committee therefore decided that only a suspension of two years would maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct for the serious nature of these charges."
Mr Adams has 28 days from being informed about the Disciplinary Committee’s decision to make an appeal to the Privy Council.
The new changes are being introduced in the following phases:
The new Environmental Sustainability Award allows practices to demonstrate that they have embedded environmentally sustainable behaviours and are excelling with their sustainability goals.
The Award includes points for reducing waste, consolidating medicines orders and minimising drug wastage, and calculating the practice’s carbon footprint and setting reduction targets.
The changes and additions to the standards at Core Standards and General Practice level cover the sustainability of a wide range of practice areas, including requiring a sustainability policy, communicating sustainability achievements, and minimising anaesthetic gas usage.
As well as improving environmental sustainability, the new and amended standards also include requirements to help make practices more socially sustainable, through measures including increasing diversity and inclusion.
The PSS has produced a list of resources to support veterinary practices with meeting the new environmental sustainability standards and implementing sustainable practices in general.
Mandisa Greene, Chair of the Practice Standards Group, said: “We want to assure PSS-accredited practices that the new standards won’t mean an overhaul of ways of working or result in expensive investment in resources.
"Instead, the standards explain ways that practices can increase their sustainability by putting in place new measures gradually over the next 12 months, in time for them becoming mandatory.
"As with all standards updates, the PSS team are always available to answer any questions that practices have and anyone who is unsure about how to apply them is encouraged to get in touch with the PSS team.”
During the last Standards Committee meeting, there were also several approved clarifications to the standards in the form of guidance notes and minor changes across a range of accreditation levels.
These include updates to the guidance notes for requirements on sterilisation of dental instruments, environmental swabbing of clinical areas, and anaesthetic monitoring.
The new version of the standards that includes all the latest changes, and a separate document listing all the updates, are available to download here: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/practice-standards-scheme/additional-resources
Any questions from practices about the updates can be sent to the PSS team at pss@rcvs.org.uk
The RCVS has announced that 19 people are standing in this year's RCVS Council elections, including, for the first time, more women than men, and a much lower average candidate age.
Of the 19 candidates - believed to be the highest number since records began - ten are women. Not only is this the most women ever to stand, but it is in direct contrast to last year where all 13 candidates were men. Additionally, whereas the average age of all elected Council members in March 2013 was 56.5 (57 for women and 56 for men), the average age of this year's candidates is 47 (45 for women and 48 for men).
The RCVS Council candidates are:
Last year, the all-male candidate list prompted concern from the profession and calls for the College to investigate the reasons behind the lack of women and to take steps to redress the balance. The then RCVS President Jacqui Molyneux invited feedback from the profession about the barriers to joining Council, and set up a working party, chaired by Council member Amanda Boag, to look at how participation could be widened, not only to women, but also younger members of the profession and those actively engaged in clinical practice.
The working party suggested a number of initiatives, including a mentoring scheme, providing more practical information about being a Council member (see www.youtube.com/rcvsvideos), and inviting prospective candidates to the RCVS to discuss the role in more detail.
Amanda said: "The College's efforts to broaden participation in its election process seem to have paid dividends. I'm delighted there is so much more diversity amongst the election candidates this year, and that so many women have decided to throw their hat into the ring, especially as women now form over 50% of the profession. I'm very much looking forward to the outcome of the elections, and hope that this dramatic increase in candidates in turn prompts an excellent turnout."
In a slightly later start to the voting period this year, ballot papers and candidate details will be posted on 19 March 2014, and all votes must be cast, either online or by post, by 5pm on Friday, 25 April 2014.
In the meantime, the College is inviting all voters to think about the one question they would like to put to the candidates and submit it in time for this year's 'Quiz the Candidates', to be broadcast by the Webinar Vet on the evening of 20 March. All questions received will be put to the candidates, who will each then answer two questions of their choice, as well as explaining what they consider sets them apart as a potential Council member. The candidates' answers will be pre-recorded (due to the large number of candidates) and made available online at around 8:00pm on 20th March.
Questions (one per person) for RCVS Council should be submitted to the RCVS by 12 March via its dedicated election websites, available soon at www.votebyinternet.com/vetvote14, on twitter using the hashtag #vetvote14, or by email to vetvote14@rcvs.org.uk.
Kate’s election means that, come July and subject to ratification by RCVS Council, the offices of RCVS President, Senior-Vice President and Junior Vice-President will all be held by women for the first time in the College’s 177-year history.
A graduate of Edinburgh’s Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, Kate was a farm vet for 15 years, a partner in a 15 vet practice in Aberdeen. She then moved to the pharmaceutical industry as a veterinary advisor before joining the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra). From there, she moved into non-veterinary Senior Civil Service (SCS) roles in several Whitehall departments including the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Justice. As a senior civil servant she was Principal Private Secretary to three Secretaries of State for Scotland, handling a diverse policy portfolio and working across Whitehall, including No.10 Downing Street and the Devolved Administrations.
First elected to RCVS Council in 2015 for a four year term and again in 2020, Kate has previously served as Chair of the RCVS Standards Committee and RCVS representative on the UK co-ordination group for the Federation of Vets of Europe (FVE). Currently Vice Chair of the Education Committee, member of the Registration Committee and the Environment & Sustainability Working Party, Kate is an appointed veterinary member of Veterinary Nurses’ Council.
Kate is a qualified Official Veterinarian (OV), a Non-Executive Director on the Moredun Foundation and Scottish Agriculture College (SAC) Commercial Boards, a veterinary advisor on a Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC) mental health project and on the Council of the Association of Government Veterinarians. She’s a member of the British Veterinary Association (BVA) and the Veterinary Public Health Association. A Council member of the British Cattle Veterinary Association (2004-10), Kate served as a Trustee of the BVA Animal Welfare Foundation (2014-17).
Current RCVS President Dr Mandisa Greene will become Senior Vice-President, and joining Kate and Mandisa on the Officer team will be Dr Melissa Donald, who last month was elected Junior Vice-President for 2021-22. Current Senior Vice-President Dr Niall Connell was recently elected RCVS Treasurer.
The vacancy in the RCVS Officer team arose following Professor David Argyle’s decision to resign from Council in March, meaning that Council needed to hold two votes in quick succession: one at its scheduled meeting in March for the 2021-22 JVP position; and one today for the current JVP vacancy.
Kate said: “I am delighted to be elected JVP. It’s been an exceptionally challenging year for those in all walks of veterinary life, including students aspiring to join our profession. It will be an honour to lead the RCVS as its tenth female president, working with veterinary colleagues as well as reaching out to allied professionals acknowledging that there will be challenges to navigate as well as triumphs to celebrate.”
The RCVS has announced that its new Royal Charter, which recognises veterinary nursing as a profession, is due to come into effect early next year once it has been signed by Her Majesty the Queen and received the Great Seal of the Realm.
The Charter, which was approved at a meeting of the Privy Council on 5 November, sets out and clarifies the objects of the RCVS and modernises its regulatory functions.
The Charter will also confirm the role of the College as the regulator of veterinary nurses and give registered veterinary nurses the formal status of associates of the College.
In addition, the Charter will also underpin other activities of the College such as the Practice Standards Scheme.
One of the key changes is that those qualified veterinary nurses who are currently on the List will automatically become registered veterinary nurses. This means that they will be required to abide by the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses, will be held accountable for their actions through the RCVS disciplinary process and will be expected to keep their skills and knowledge up-to-date by undertaking at least 45 hours of continuing professional development (CPD) over a three-year period.
In addition, the Charter will give formal recognition for VN Council to set the standards for professional conduct and education for veterinary nurses.
Kathy Kissick RVN, the current chair of VN Council, said: “A Charter which recognises veterinary nursing as a fully regulated profession is something that many veterinary nurses, as well as the British Veterinary Nursing Association, have been wanting for some time so I commend this development.
“This can only be a good thing for the profession, the industry as a whole and animal welfare because it makes sure that registered veterinary nurses are fully accountable for their professional conduct and are committed to lifelong learning and developing their knowledge and skills.
“Furthermore, the new Royal Charter is a significant step towards attaining formal, statutory protection of title, which would make it an offence for anyone who is not suitably qualified and registered to call themselves a veterinary nurse.”
From next autumn those former listed veterinary nurses who have become registered veterinary nurses will be expected to confirm that they are undertaking CPD and will also need to disclose any criminal convictions, cautions or adverse findings when they renew their registration.
A detailed set of frequently asked questions for listed veterinary nurses who will become registered veterinary nurses once the Charter is implemented can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/rvn.
Although the date for signing and sealing the Charter has not yet been confirmed, once it comes into effect the College will be contacting all listed veterinary nurses by letter to outline the changes as well as putting an announcement on www.rcvs.org.uk.
Miss Padron Vega faced four charges. The first and second alleged that in February 2016, for the purposes of an application to the Food Standards Agency for a Certificate of Competence under the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing Regulations 2015, she backdated two separate veterinary witness certificates to 7 December 2015. The third charge alleged that her acts of backdating were misleading, dishonest and in breach of the RCVS Principles of Certification.
The fourth charge against Miss Padron Vega was that, between September 2015 and February 2016, she failed to fulfil her duties as an Official Veterinarian in respect of: failing to prepare herself for the implementation of the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing Regulations 2015; failing to have regard to the information provided to her by her employers about the regulations and their implementation; failing to take any steps to ensure that the two individuals for whom she had given veterinary certification were licensed to perform slaughter in accordance with the regulations; and failing to identify that two individuals were not licensed to slaughter in accordance with the regulations.
The Committee heard that the Welfare at the Time of Killing Regulations were introduced on 5 November 2015 which placed the responsibility on slaughtering operations not to permit animal welfare abuses and required certification by a veterinary witness regarding compliance.
The new regulations required existing slaughter licence holders to apply for a Certificate of Competence before midnight on 8 December 2015 or they would not be permitted to continue operating even with experienced operatives.
During the hearing, Ms Padron Vega admitted charges 1 and 2, admitted that she had been in breach of the Principles of Certification and admitted the fourth charge against her.
However, she denied she had backdated the certificates in a misleading or dishonest way, maintaining that she had done so by mistake.
In considering the facts of the case, however, the Committee rejected this argument and, taking into account that she had been responsible for veterinary certifications in the UK since 2001, found that her conduct was knowingly misleading and dishonest.
The Committee then went on to consider whether the charges she admitted and the charges found against her constituted serious professional misconduct, both individually and cumulatively.
The Committee found that all the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In relation to charge 4 in particular Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee has found that the respondent failed to read even those emails which her employer sent to her which were marked ‘urgent’ or ‘OV importance high’. She must have known that her employers were directing attention to some new statutory scheme for she was provided with PowerPoint slides in that regard which she could read at any time of her convenience. The Committee has been driven to the conclusion that the respondent did not even bother to read those slides for, had she done so, she would have known that she needed to apprise herself of the requirements of the impending new statutory scheme.
"The respondent’s failings in this regard are little short of extraordinary, especially given her obligations as Lead OV for FAI Farms. The total abdication of her responsibility to understand the requirements of the Regulations governing the slaughterhouse operations constitutes, in the judgement of this Committee disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
The Committee then went on to consider the aggravating and mitigating factors in the case. In terms of aggravating features the Committee noted a lack of insight into the gravity of her conduct, that her conduct undermined in the most serious way public confidence in veterinary certification, and that there were animal welfare implications on her conduct as a number of chickens had to be removed from the slaughterhouse and alternative arrangements made because an auditor from the Food Standards Agency found that it was not compliant.
In mitigation the Committee considered that, despite the potential risk of harm, there was no actual harm occasioned to animals, that Miss Padron Vega has had a long and otherwise unblemished career and no previous issues with the RCVS and that she had admitted some of the charges against her.
Stuart Drummond added: "Ultimately, the Committee was driven to the conclusion that the public’s desire to see the implementation of the highest certification standards in relation to activities which impact on animal welfare and public health, and which did not occur on 3 February 2016, must outweigh this particular veterinary surgeon’s desire and need to continue in practice. This is not a conclusion which the Committee has arrived at lightly. On the contrary, it has reached this decision because it has been driven to the conclusion that it would be failing in its public duty to protect the wider public interest in the maintenance of standards of honesty and right conduct in a member of the profession.
"It is, therefore, 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 and it directs the Registrar accordingly."
Miss Padron Vega has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.
The RCVS has written to the MPs drawn in today's private members' Bill ballot to call upon them to introduce legislation to protect the title 'veterinary nurse' and introduce an effective regulatory system that would ensure that those veterinary nurses found guilty of serious professional misconduct are prevented from carrying out medical treatment to or surgery on animals.
Currently the title 'veterinary nurse' is not protected, so anyone can legally refer to themselves as a veterinary nurse, regardless of their level of training.
Furthermore, veterinary nurses (VNs) are not subject to statutory regulation; the RCVS uses powers under its Royal Charter to award certificates to VNs who have undergone approved training. Qualified VNs (whose names appear in a List of certificate-holders published by the RCVS) are allowed to give medical treatment to, or carry out minor surgery on, animals under the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (VSA).
In 2007, the RCVS introduced a non-statutory Register of Veterinary Nurses. Registered veterinary nurses (RVNs) commit to follow a code of professional conduct, keep their skills and knowledge up to date and submit to a disciplinary system.
RVNs found guilty of serious professional misconduct can be suspended or removed from the Register at the direction of the RVN Disciplinary Committee (DC), but the RCVS has no power to remove them from the List. This means they can still legally give medical treatment or carry out minor surgery and perform other nursing duties specified under VSA (although they will then be formally listed as 'DC removal - Listed').
The RCVS has been working for some time to develop a framework for the regulation of veterinary nurses and has sent the ballot MPs a pre-prepared Bill, drafted by leading Counsel.
The statutory regulation of VNs is widely supported by the veterinary nursing profession and the public. This is evidenced by a 2012 HM Government e-petition, calling for the statutory regulation of veterinary nurses, which received over 2,500 signatures. Furthermore, the regulation of veterinary nurses by statute is supported by the British Veterinary Nursing Association and the British Veterinary Association, the representative bodies for veterinary nurses and surgeons in the UK.
RCVS Chief Executive Nick Stace said:"I urge MPs selected in today's Ballot to take forward legislation for the statutory regulation of veterinary nurses and the protection of the title veterinary nurse. The nation's animals and owners deserve better than the current situation.
"There is widespread support amongst the public and profession for such legislation, so the RCVS has had a Bill drafted by leading Counsel and is prepared to offer significant support to any MP willing to pick up this worthy cause."
Nockolds Solicitors was approved as the new administrator of the ADR trial by RCVS Council at its June 2016 meeting at Cardiff City Hall. The company was identified and approved by the RCVS Operational Board as meeting its requirements, a decision which the RCVS says has been welcomed by the Veterinary Defence Society and the British Veterinary Association, as well as receiving lay and consumer support.
The current trial, which was launched in November 2014 and is administered by Ombudsman Services, will come to a close by 1 October, when the new trial with Nockolds will start.
Nick Stace, RCVS Chief Executive and Secretary, said: "In order to be able to make an informed choice about how we wish to design and implement a permanent ADR scheme we wanted to ensure that we have as many different options and as much data as possible. It is very important that we get the permanent scheme right and this is why Operational Board made the decision to have a second trial. It was also clear that satisfaction levels from consumers for the previous trial were lower than we would have liked and that we therefore need to explore other options.
"It is important to note that this will not just be a re-run of the first trial with a different administrator – there will be some significant differences between this and our first trial with Ombudsman Services.
"First, this will be a truly alternative process as consumers will be able to access the trial directly rather than having to go through the College’s concerns process first.
"Second, this will be a process of mediation meaning that expert advisors from Nockolds will facilitate communication between the complainant and the veterinary surgeon to try and find a satisfactory solution to the concern."
The trial will be promoted to both the public and the profession as an alternative to the College’s formal concerns investigation process and participation in the trial will be voluntary. There will also still be a panel of veterinary advisors overseeing the trial and helping staff at Nockolds with any clinical queries they may have.
Jennie Jones is a Partner at Nockolds and will head up the trial. She said: "We are committed to providing a service that mediates complaints to find a fair, efficient and proportionate resolution. We are looking forward to working with everyone involved in veterinary profession to develop an effective mediation service that can be accessed by both the public and members of the profession.
"The service will focus on finding effective and practical resolutions. Understanding the root cause of the complaint and re-establishing effective communication are the crucial first steps in mediation and helping the parties to find a solution they can both accept. Over the coming months, we will be working with the RCVS, representative bodies for the profession and consumers to launch the service.
"In addition to mediating complaints, we will share insight in mediation and complaint resolution to inform practitioners and stakeholders and to enhance standards at veterinary practices. This enables complaint analysis to be used to help improve client care, avoid complaints and maintain trust and confidence in the profession."
A bespoke website for the trial will be set up in time for the launch on 1 October 2016.
The increase, which was approved by the Privy Council on Thursday 2 March, will mean that the standard annual renewal fee for UK-practising veterinary surgeons (which must be paid on or before 1 April 2023) will increase by £15 to £379.
The full list of RCVS fees can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/how-we-work/fees
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, said: “We are proud that all throughout the pandemic period, when we know that many were struggling, we managed to keep our fees at the same level in the 2020/21, 2021/22, and 2022/23 fee years.
“The increase that we proposed to the Privy Council is very modest, particularly in comparison to the overall levels of inflation that the British economy has experienced over the past year, which has had an impact on our costs.
“While we appreciate that any rise in fee levels will not be welcomed by everyone, we can assure all members of the professions that we are continuing to use our income prudently and with oversight from our Audit & Risk and Finance & Resources Committees.”
As the increase has been confirmed by the Privy Council, annual renewal fee notifications will be sent to all veterinary surgeons in early March.
Miss Herdman faced three charges.
The first was that she indicated to a friend that she would supply diazepam and/or tramadol for use by their husband.
The second was that she supplied diazepam and/or tramadol and/or gabapentin.
The third was that she gave advice on the dosages of diazepam and/or tramadol and/or gabapentin.
Miss Herdman was not present at the hearing and was unrepresented, but the Committee determined that it was appropriate to proceed in her absence as she had been notified, was aware that the hearing was taking place and her absence was voluntary.
However, Miss Herdman had been in contact to indicate her pleas to the charges.
She admitted the intention to supply diazepam and/or tramadol and that she had provided advice on the dosages.
She also admitted that she had supplied diazepam but strongly denied that she had supplied tramadol and/or gabapentin.
Taking all the evidence into account (including messages sent by Miss Herdman and her admissions), the Committee found proven the charges in relation to the intent to supply and the advice on dosages.
The Committee also found proven the charge in relation to the supply of diazepam, but found not proved the charge relating to the supply of tramadol and gabapentin for several reasons, including the fact that the messages sent by Miss Herdman did not point unequivocally to her actually suppling each of the drugs to which she referred.
There was no suggestion that the diazepam was stolen from her place of work.
The Committee found that Miss Herdman’s actions had breached paragraphs 1.5 and 6.5 of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses.
The committee judged that there were a number of aggravating features of Miss Herdman’s conduct, including that she was not qualified or authorised to prescribe medication to animals, let alone to human beings and that providing a controlled drug to a person who was already taking various painkilling medications was reckless.
The Committee also felt that a reasonable and informed member of the public would be very concerned to learn that a veterinary nurse had supplied a controlled drug to a friend for their personal use.
Regarding the sanction for Miss Herdman, Paul Morris, chairing the Veterinary Nursing Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Drawing all the material together, and considering the matter as a whole, the Committee had to impose a proportionate sanction for an isolated incident of serious professional misconduct which arose out of a misguided attempt to help a friend.
"The conduct in question was entirely out of keeping with Miss Herdman’s usual practice and there is no real risk that it will be repeated.
"However, this case was much too serious to take no further action and no useful purpose would be served by postponing a sanction.
“The Committee considered that a warning or reprimand would not be sufficient to satisfy the public interest as veterinary nurses are trusted by the public to deal with medication responsibly and failure to do constitutes a severe breach of trust.
“The Committee therefore considered a period of suspension sufficient to meet the public interest in maintaining the reputation of the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct for members of the profession.
“The Committee also considered whether a removal order would be appropriate but concluded it would be disproportionate and that such a step would remove from the profession an experienced, competent and valuable veterinary nurse for no discernible benefit.
“It was decided that Miss Herdman’s registration be suspended for a period of three months – a period which is sufficient to mark the gravity of the misconduct while taking into account the circumstances in which it arose.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/
Those who pay their fees after 30 April 2017 will be charged an extra £35 to renew their registration while those who have not paid by 31 May 2017 will be removed from the Register.
You will also need to confirm your registration details, confirm you've met the RCVS requirement for continuing professional development of 105 hours over a three-year rolling period and disclose any new or previously undisclosed convictions, cautions or adverse findings.
The annual renewal can be completed by logging into the ‘My Account’ area of the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/login). For those members who do not have a valid email address, or have requested a hard copy of the renewal form, a form has been sent by post.
Any veterinary surgeons who have not received their annual renewal form or security details for the ‘My Account’ area by 7 March should contact the RCVS Registration Department on 020 7202 0707 or registration@rcvs.org.uk as soon as possible.
Those with queries about paying the annual renewal fee should contact the RCVS Finance Team on 020 7202 0723 or finance@rcvs.org.uk
Two new Postgraduate Deans have been appointed by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons to advise and monitor new veterinary surgeons during their Professional Development Phase (PDP), the first stage in veterinary continuing professional development.
Jill Hubbard, a partner at Cibyn Veterinary Surgery, Caernarfon, and organiser of BVA North Wales' young graduate meetings, and Nicky Paull, a former BVA President with extensive experience of running veterinary practices and understanding of the needs of veterinary graduates, were selected from over 40 applicants. They join existing Deans, Professor Agnes Winter and Julian Wells, and replace Professor David Noakes and Stephen Ware, who are retiring from the role having served since 2007, when PDP first became a requirement for veterinary graduates.
Jill Hubbard said: "I have always had a particular interest in how we support and guide our new graduates. This seemed a way of being actively involved - a useful niche to try and fill."
Nicky Paull said: "The development of young veterinary graduates has been of special interest to me for some years. In employing young veterinary surgeons, meeting recent graduates through my political work and the time spent with undergraduates through extra-mural studies and the Society of Practising Veterinary Surgeons' final year student seminars, I'm aware of the need for help and guidance for development of the young vets who are joining our profession."
The PDP applies to every newly qualified veterinary surgeon. It consists of an online record which the vet completes, and which is signed off by a Postgraduate Dean. This helps new vets and their employers check that sufficient experience is being gained so that the vet can progress from the 'Day-One competencies' of a new graduate to those expected of a vet with about a year's in-practice experience.
Ceredigion veterinary surgeon Robert Alun Merfyn Evans has been suspended from the Register for six months by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after he admitted to misconduct relating to tuberculin testing for cattle he owned and failing to register the births and deaths of cattle.
Mr Evans appeared before the Committee on the 11th February, when he admitted the two heads of charge of misconduct against him.
The first head of charge related to the fact that, between 24 June and 29 June 2013, he deliberately failed to bring to attention of Wyn Lewis MRCVS, an Official Veterinarian (OV) and fellow director of Mr Evans’ practice in Cardigan, the cattle on his farm requiring intradermal comparative tuberculin tests; that he tested certain of the cattle himself despite not being the OV for those tests and having a conflict of interest; and that he provided inaccurate and incomplete information to his practice for the completion of a report on the testing to be sent to the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA). This misconduct was then repeated the following year between 19 June and 1 August 2014.
The second head of charge against Mr Evans related to breaches of the Cattle Identification (Wales) Regulations 2007 between 4 July 2005 and 20 June 2014, namely the fact that he failed to register the birth of five calves and the death of nine cows. These were accepted as being specimen charges reflecting a much larger total number of breaches over the whole nine year period.
Mr Evans’ misconduct first came to light when a late return was sent to the AHVLA in August 2014 regarding the TB testing of 51 live animals on his farm in June 2014. When the report was scrutinised the AHVLA noticed that 26 animals shown on the return as dead were still registered, while 20 animals that were tested were not registered. When the AHVLA investigated, Mr Evans immediately admitted that he had misled Mr Lewis on two occasions and carried out his own testing despite not being the OV.
The Committee heard that he did this because he did not want it to be found out that he had unregistered cattle on his farm. Regarding the unregistered cattle, the Committee heard that this stemmed from a mistake made by Mr Evans in 2005 or 2006 whereby he mislaid a batch of around nine bovine passport application forms sent to him to register the birth of calves on his farm, a legal requirement for the purposes of animal health, disease control and safeguarding the food chain.
As a result of poor IT skills and being profoundly deaf, Mr Evans felt unable to seek support online or by telephone, was too embarrassed to tell others and, furthermore, felt that it was impossible to correct his mistake without being in breach of the law. So, for a period of nine or 10 years, he failed to register the birth of calves on his farm. His failure to register the deaths of cattle, was also caused by administrative failings. His breaches of the cattle registration regulations were subject to criminal proceedings and on 14 October 2015 he plead guilty at Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire Magistrates Court to 14 offences for which he was given a conditional discharge for 18 months and ordered to pay costs of £1,000.
The Committee considered that a suspension from the Register would be in line with the seriousness of the charges against Mr Evans. Professor Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee agrees that the lengthy period over which these offences took place, his betrayal of his colleague, and the undermining of the reputation of the profession and of the system of disease control, taken together with his dishonesty, make it impossible to impose a lesser sanction than suspension.
"The Committee finds that the respondent, who is a man of good character, has fully accepted his guilt, and has real insight into the seriousness of his conduct. He cooperated fully with the investigations and with the County Council who prosecuted him in the Magistrates [Court], and with the College. He made an open and frank admission about his misconduct from the outset.
"The course of conduct on which he embarked and which has led to these charges was the result of a simple mistake at a time of considerable stress to him. He was not guilty of deliberate misconduct at the outset but… what started as an innocent mistake took on a life of its own and led him to deliberate and dishonest misconduct because he did not know how to get himself out of the predicament he was in."
Professor Barr also said that there was no financial gain in Mr Evans’ actions and that animal welfare had not been compromised as the cattle were well cared for and in good health and that Mr Evans’ actions in carrying out the tuberculin tests on the unregistered cattle himself demonstrated that he was concerned about identifying any disease in his herd.
He added: “In all the circumstances the Committee has decided a proportionate sanction is that the respondent’s registration should be suspended for a period of six months.”
The Committee’s full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
The RCVS is encouraging vets to nominate members of their nursing team for this year's VN Golden Jubilee Award, which recognises exceptional contribution to veterinary nursing.
The award was launched in 2011 to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the first RCVS veterinary nursing training course and recognises those who have made an outstanding contribution to the profession, animal welfare and/or patient care. Nominees can be registered veterinary nurses, veterinary surgeons or lay people.
Nomination forms need to be submitted by 5pm on Friday 24 April. The principal nominator must be a registered veterinary nurse or veterinary surgeon, although the two supporting proposers can be lay people.
Kathy Kissick, Chair of VN Council, said: "One of the main priorities of VN Council in the coming years is to raise levels of awareness of registered veterinary nurses, and awards which recognise the importance of VNs in the context of the veterinary team and animal welfare are crucial to enhancing the profession's profile.
"Therefore I would encourage veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons to think about those VNs who go above and beyond the call of duty for their cause and who would be excellent ambassadors for the profession and nominate them for the Golden Jubilee Award."
Last year's winner was Hayley Walters who was recognised for her contribution to animal welfare through her teaching, clinical and international outreach work. Previous recipients were Jean Turner in 2011 and Sue Badger in 2012. No award was made in 2013.
The nomination form for the VN Golden Jubilee Award can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk/goldenjubilee
The winner will be chosen by a panel of VN Council members and will receive the Award at RCVS Day - the College's Annual General Meeting and Awards Day - on Friday 10 July 2015.
For further information about making a nomination for the award contact Annette Amato, Deputy Head of Veterinary Nursing, on a.amato@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0713.
There were two charges against Dr Mulvey. The first was that, between May and October 2018, she failed to provide the clinical history for an English Cocker Spaniel named Henry to the Tremain Veterinary Group, despite numerous requests. Also, that between August 2018 and October 2018, she failed to respond adequately or at all to Henry’s owner's requests for information, particularly his clinical records and details of insurance claims made for Henry by her practice.
The second charge was that in January/February 2019, she failed to respond to reasonable requests from the RCVS, particularly in relation to her treatment of Henry, her continuing professional development (CPD) and the status of her Professional Indemnity Insurance.
At the beginning of the hearing, Dr Mulvey admitted the facts and conduct alleged in the charges and also admitted that when her conduct was considered cumulatively, she was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The Committee, having considered the evidence provided by the College and Dr Mulvey’s admissions found all the facts and conduct to be proved.
The Committee also concluded that Dr Mulvey's failure to respond to Henry's owners and to the College amounted to disgraceful conduct both when considered individually and cumulatively.
In respect of the first charge, the Committee decided that Dr Mulvey had breached the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons by failing to provide clinical records or details of insurance claims.
This was an administrative part of the function of a veterinary surgeon’s role and that failure to provide clients with such information was unacceptable and fell far short of acceptable professional standards. The Committee noted that Dr Mulvey’s failure to provide details of insurance claims had occurred because she had not made those claims, despite offering to do so.
With regard to the second charge, the Committee concluded that Dr Mulvey’s failure to respond to five requests from the College for information about Henry was unacceptable.
The Committee also considered that the omissions took place in the context of Dr Mulvey’s previous Disciplinary Committee hearing in April 2018 during which she agreed to a number of undertakings including supervision on her professional practice by an appointed supervisor. It therefore decided that her failure to provide evidence of her CPD and Professional Indemnity Insurance to the College each individually amounted disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The Committee then went on to consider the sanction for Dr Mulvey in relation to the both charges that it had found proved and also in respect of the charges it had found proved at its earlier hearing on 26 April 2018 for which sanction had been postponed for a period of 1 year to enable Dr Mulvey to comply with undertakings she gave to the Committee to ensure that her practice met RCVS Core Standards by May 2019.
The Committee heard from Mr Stuart King MRCVS who had been appointed to act as a Workplace Supervisor for Dr Mulvey during the period of her Undertakings. Mr King provided the Committee with a report upon the extent to which Dr Mulvey had complied with the terms of her undertakings including the extent which she had implemented Dr King’s numerous recommendations.
The Committee also heard from Dr Byrne MRCVS an inspector for the RCVS’s voluntary Practice Standards Scheme that Dr Mulvey’s practice, when inspected by him in early April 2019, had not met RCVS PSS Core standards in a number of areas.
The Committee heard from Dr Mulvey and her Counsel that she accepted that she had not met RCVS Core standards as she had undertaken to do.
In reaching its decision as to sanction for all the matters, the Committee took into account that Dr Mulvey’s misconduct overall was serious because it was repeated.
The Committee also considered aggravating and mitigating factors.
Aggravating factors included the fact that the misconduct was sustained or repeated over a period of time (in relation to charge 1 for a period of approximately 4 months and in relation to charge 2 for approximately 6 weeks).
Other aggravating factors include the fact that Dr Mulvey’s conduct contravened advice issued by the Professional Conduct Department in letters sent to her, and that she had wilfully disregarded the role of the RCVS and the systems that regulate the veterinary profession.
Mitigating factors included that: there was no harm to any animal; there was no financial gain for Dr Mulvey or any other party; there was no ulterior motive behind Dr Mulvey’s conduct; and that Dr Mulvey had in fact both completed her minimum CPD requirement and secured Professional Indemnity Insurance, demonstrating that she had not attempted to hide such information from the College.
It also took into account that Dr Mulvey, prior to the first Disciplinary Committee’s hearing in 2018, worked without any previous disciplinary findings against her from 1976 to 2018. The Committee also noted that she had made efforts to comply with some of the undertakings.
Mr Ian Green, Chair of the DC and speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, said: "The Committee considered that a warning or reprimand was not an appropriate sanction that would meet the public interest. Instead, the Committee decided that a suspension order for a period of six months would allow Dr Mulvey sufficient time to focus on ensuring her practice met the Core Standards set out in the Practice Standards Scheme, without the daily demands of practising as a veterinary surgeon, and was a proportionate and sufficient sanction to meet the public interest.
"The Committee was satisfied that a period of six months met the public interest as it was sanctioning Dr Mulvey for two sets of similar misconduct which we had determined overall as serious. The Committee also believed that during these six months Dr Mulvey could reflect and reorganise her practice, and there would be little risk to animals and the public in her returning to practice."
Dr Mulvey has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.
The two surveys, for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses respectively, ask the professions a wide range of both quantitative and qualitative questions, covering everything from what they do in a typical working day, to career aspirations, to levels of mental and physical wellbeing.
The surveys are confidential and anonymous.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, said: “Our Surveys of the Professions are not just a useful and interesting snapshot of the veterinary professions at a particular moment in time, but are really consequential in terms of what we do with the results.
"For example, information from the previous surveys were used to inform our current Strategic Plan, including our mission to be a compassionate regulator, ongoing support for the Mind Matters Initiative, and a focus on workforce-related issues.
"In a similar spirit, this year’s results will inform the forthcoming RCVS Strategic Plan.
“Of course, the quality of the results of the surveys really depends on hearing from as many of you as possible – so we would like veterinary professionals from all parts of the UK as well as our overseas members, from all backgrounds, of all ages and working on all different disciplines to feed into all areas of the surveys and help us with our research.
"Please don’t miss out on having your say, and a huge thank you for taking the time to support this important work.”
The deadline for completing the survey is on or before Friday 16 February 2024.
The RCVS has announced the appointment of Gordon Hockey as its Head of Legal Services/Registrar.
Gordon, who was previously Head of Professional Conduct and Assistant Registrar, has latterly been Acting Registrar, following the departure of Jane Hern in November 2011 and the arrival of Nick Stace as Chief Executive on 3 September.
A qualified barrister and pharmacist, Gordon has been at the RCVS for the last 14 years.
His is a new role created when the old post of Registrar and Secretary was effectively split into two: Chief Executive and Secretary, and Head of Legal Services/Registrar.
Nick Stace said: "I am delighted that Gordon's is my first appointment as Chief Executive, and I am grateful that he held the fort so well for the last nine months. I look forward to working with him to ensure that the RCVS is in the best shape possible to meet the needs of the public and the veterinary team."
Jacqui Molyneux, RCVS President said: "We have a very strong team to take the RCVS forward. Nick has joined us with leadership experience, consumer expertise and new ideas and impetus; Gordon consolidates this with his legal expertise and experience of the veterinary profession and the RCVS. I look forward to working with them both."
The appointment is subject to formal ratification at the November meeting of Council.