Ms Mulvey faced a number of charges relating to the treatment of a cat called Spooky: that she failed to provide Spooky’s owner, Mrs Parsons, with either Spooky’s lab results or an adequate explanation as to why they could not be provided; that she failed to respond adequately or at all to communications from Mrs Parsons; that she failed to respond to requests from the College for information relating to Continuing Professional Development (CPD), her professional indemnity insurance (PII), and her correspondence with Mrs Parsons.
At the beginning of the hearing Dr Mulvey admitted the facts to all the charges, and accepted that they constituted disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. The Committee had been provided with written evidence from Mrs Parsons, her husband, and four College staff, namely Gemma Crossley, Maria Fearon, Robert Girling and Michael Hepper.
Mrs Parsons provided a statement in which she spoke of how, in August 2016, she had taken Spooky to CornYard Veterinary Centre for a skin irritation where she was seen by Dr Mulvey.
Dr Mulvey decided to take blood tests and send them to the laboratory, but they agreed to defer them actually being tested until Mrs Parsons gave permission. Mrs Parsons then returned to the practice with Spooky to take said samples, after which followed a series of attempts to contact Dr Mulvey for the test results. Finally, in October, she demanded a refund, after which she began a small claim in County Court.
Mr Parsons went to the practice at the beginning of December 2016 and obtained the refund. At this point Mrs Parsons made a complaint to the College. The Committee received information from Mr Parsons, who corroborated the facts of the complaint, and from College staff who confirmed the many attempts to contact Dr Mulvey, starting with requests for documents by Ms Crossley and Ms Fearon, repeated requests for CPD and PII information from Mr Girling, and finally a hand-delivered letter by Mr Hepper, during which he learnt that her PII had lapsed at the beginning of 2017.
The College submitted that Dr Mulvey’s conduct fell far below the standard expected of a veterinary surgeon. It submitted that failing to provide the test results and communicate with the Parsons could have had a negative impact on animal welfare and damaged the reputation of the profession, while having PII is a fundamental obligation of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct. Finally, not responding to the College about the concern raised, CPD or PII compromised the College’s ability to maintain public confidence in its regulatory processes.
The Committee considered that no harm had actually come to Spooky and that there were problems with the testing laboratory which slowed down the process. In addition, some of the lack of communication was due to a receptionist not following protocol, and Dr Mulvey was going through a particularly difficult part of her life and was clinically understaffed. The Committee heard from four different character witnesses, and were given 16 more written testimonials.
The Committee heard that in 2013 there had been complaints from three separate clients, all of which concerned Dr Mulvey’s failure to communicate and to process insurance claim forms, after which she agreed to participate in the Performance Protocol and entered into undertakings with the College.
The Committee having considered all the facts and background circumstances found that Dr Mulvey’s conduct was disgraceful in a professional respect.
The Committee went on to consider what sanction was appropriate. In reaching its decision the Committee took into account a number of aggravating factors, namely that there was a slight risk to the health of Spooky and that the disgraceful conduct occurred over a prolonged period of time. The Committee also considered that there was blatant disregard of the role of the RCVS and the systems regulating the profession.
In determining the sanction the Committee also considered mitigating factors, including that Dr Mulvey, apart from those previous concerns, had a long and unblemished career and that she’s made a huge difference to the health of the animals within her care. She also admitted her shortcomings, and had very impressive references.
The Committee therefore determined to postpone its decision on sanction for a period of one year on condition that Dr Mulvey enter into the following undertakings:
To agree to the appointment of a veterinary surgeon as a work place supervisor by the College and meet with them at least once every month
Allow the supervisor access to all aspects of running of the practice and to implement any recommendations made by the supervisor relating to the administration of the practice and the provision of out of hours’ cover.
To allow the supervisor to provide a report in relation to the matters set out in 2 above to the RCVS at least one month before the resumed hearing of this case.
To appoint within two months an experienced Practice Manager (who does not need to be full time).
To enrol in the voluntary Practices Standards Scheme and to achieve the Core standards of the Scheme within the next 12 months.
To submit a plan to the supervisor of CPD for the next twelve months within one month of agreeing to these undertakings. The plan should then be implemented and shall include aspects of practice management.
To pay all of the costs of complying with the undertakings, with the exception of the costs associated with the appointment and performance of the supervisor.
Ian Green, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee recognised that Dr Mulvey has been subject to undertakings before and yet committed the disgraceful conduct the subject of this inquiry. But it bore in mind the context of that conduct and it observes that the undertakings previously imposed in reality address a particular aspect of her practice.
"This Committee hopes that when the matter is relisted before it, the Respondent will be able to demonstrate that she has finally been able to address her administrative shortcomings. If she cannot do so, she will know that the Committee that sits on her case at the resumed hearing is likely to have more restricted options for disposal of her case."
The inquiry in regard to Karen Tracey Hancock took place in her absence in January, after she indicated that she was content not to appear or to be represented.
The charges against Mrs Hancock related to an injury she falsely claimed she sustained to her knee while moving a euthanased dog in August 2015 that was then exacerbated while moving another dog a couple of weeks later.
The charges also stated that she made entries in the practice’s accident book also stating that she had injured her knee at work and then aggravated it later.
The charges also stated that, in County Court civil proceedings against the practice in relation to the alleged injuries, she falsely:
The Committee noted that the County Court claim made by Mrs Hancock was listed for a trial and concluded with a consent order dated 21 June 2019 which stated that the claim was dismissed.
It also considered evidence from eyewitnesses regarding the two alleged events that led to and exacerbated her knee injury in August 2015. In doing so the Committee found that, though Mrs Hancock did have an injury to her right knee, this was due to a horse-riding incident a number of years earlier and that her account of the incidents on 13 and 29 August, and therefore her claims to have been caused injury by them, were false and that her conduct had been dishonest.
The Committee therefore found all charges against Mrs Hancock proven.
The Committee then considered whether the proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct. In doing so it considered submissions made by Counsel for the RCVS that there were a number of aggravating factors in the case of Mrs Hancock’s conduct including that the misconduct was sustained over a long period of time, was premeditated and involved lying for financial gain.
In commenting on whether the conduct was serious professional misconduct Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee found all of the aggravating factors set out… in this case applied to its decision on whether or not the conduct amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
"Such conduct would bring the profession of veterinary nurses into disrepute and would undermine public confidence in the profession because the dishonesty was directly concerned with the respondent’s work as a veterinary nurse in the veterinary practice.
"The Committee concluded that the dishonest behaviour was serious misconduct, particularly so because it took place at the respondent’s workplace. It considered that honesty and trust between veterinary nurses and their employers is essential to the profession and that such conduct as set out in the charges would be considered deplorable by other members of the profession."
The Committee was therefore satisfied that all four charges individually and cumulatively amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Committee members then considered the appropriate sanction for Mrs Hancock, taking into account the aggravating factors, including a lack of insight in that, in correspondence before the hearing, she continued to deny the charges. In mitigation it noted that there had been a significant lapse of time and that she had a long and hitherto unblemished career.
On balance it decided that removal from the Register was the appropriate and proportionate sanction and requested Mrs Hancock be removed from the Register, particularly as dishonesty is considered ‘in the top spectrum of gravity’ for misconduct.
Judith Way added: “The Committee acknowledged that the respondent was physically unwell with her knee between 2015 and 2019. However there was no evidence that her health had caused her to commit the misconduct. It noted the representations that the respondent made regarding the need to support herself financially but the Committee determined that the public interest outweighed the respondent’s own interests in this case because the proven dishonesty in the circumstances in which it took place was fundamentally incompatible with continued professional registration.
“In the Committee’s judgment without any evidence of remorse or insight by the respondent a suspension order could not meet the public interest in this case. It therefore concluded that removal of the Respondent’s name from the register was the proportionate and appropriate sanction in this case.”
The RCVS has published Fitness to Practise - A Guide for UK Veterinary Schools and Veterinary Students, a guide for veterinary students which aims to introduce them to the concept of fitness to practise and help prepare them for professional life.
The guide was developed by an RCVS working party in conjunction with the UK's seven veterinary schools that currently offer an RCVS-approved veterinary degree. It has also received approval from the Veterinary Schools Council, a new body which represents the interests of the country's veterinary schools.
The guide is split into two parts: the first part provides guidance for veterinary schools on how to recognise and address fitness to practise concerns; the second part sets out the broad principles of fitness to practise that students should follow and which veterinary schools should uphold.
Laura McClintock, an Advisory Solicitor from the RCVS Professional Conduct Department, said: "While we don't regulate veterinary students themselves, we hope that this guidance will prepare future vets for the requirements and standards that we expect from members of a regulated profession and for adhering to our Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance.
"The guide also recognises that each university will have its own specific disciplinary guidelines and procedures, but we hope that this will help promote consistency in their fitness to practise regimes.
"Although we expect any adverse findings made in university fitness to practise proceedings to be declared to us upon application to register, we would take into account the fact that a student is not a fully-fledged professional and would therefore make some allowance for any mistakes and poor judgement when considering whether or not they should join the Register."
The guide can be downloaded for free from www.rcvs.org.uk/studentguide
The RCVS is also in the process of forming a working party to produce equivalent guidance for student veterinary nurses.
The review started with a series of focus groups amongst veterinary professionals across multiple sectors.
This was followed by an analysis of the information gleaned from the focus groups, additional stakeholder submissions, data from the College's Covid surveys, independent research studies and formal legal advice to formulate an online qualitative survey to gain the views and feedback of UK-based veterinary professionals.
In this final stage, the public consultation, all veterinary professionals, vet and vet nurse students, practice managers and all those who work in the veterinary practice team are invited to share the extent to which they agree (or disagree) with each element of the proposed new guidance on ‘under care’, their views on the requirements for a 24/7 follow-up service following a remote prescription and other safeguards, and their feedback on the proposed definition of limited-service providers.
There will also be a consultation with members of the animal-owning public, which will likely include questions asking for information about animal owner experiences with remote prescriptions, the perceived advantages and/or disadvantages of remote prescribing, and views on 24/7 care and how important a service this is to respondents.
Dr Melissa Donald MRCVS, RCVS President and former Chair of the Standards Committee, said: “The past two years have shown us that the veterinary professions are highly capable of adopting new ways of working.
"It also revealed that we can adapt our established ways of practice to better respond to shifts in public expectations and advancements in technology.
"However, it is our collective responsibility to ensure that any changes continue to allow us to provide safe and effective care for our patients, and meet the appropriate expectations of our clients.
“Whilst we recognise and reflect on the need for change, the proposed guidance seeks to protect animal health and welfare and maintain public trust by ensuring that decision-making remains firmly in the hands of individual veterinary surgeons, as to what they, in their professional judgement, consider appropriate in a specific situation.
“This consultation, then, while not a referendum on whether RCVS guidance on ‘under care’ and 24-hour emergency first-aid and pain relief should change – that decision having been made by Standards Committee and approved by Council based on the evidence gathered, including the views of the profession and objective evidence, and legal advice – is a crucial opportunity for veterinary colleagues to tell us whether we have got the draft guidance right, whether the proposed safeguards are sufficient, and whether there is anything we might have missed or should amend.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/undercare.
The RCVS has removed 563 veterinary surgeons from the Register from 1 June for non-payment of retention fees.
A list of those who remained off the Register as of 31 July 2012 is available here: www.rcvs.org.uk/removals2012.
The College says it is publicising the list to help make sure that those who have been removed, and their employers, are aware; it includes only those not restored prior to 31 July.
Christine Fraser, RCVS Head of Registration said: “If you know anyone who appears on this list and who is still working in the UK, you may wish to advise them they need to contact the RCVS as a matter of urgency to restore their name to the Register."
The RCVS is asking veterinary surgeons who have not yet confirmed their registration details, which is now part of the annual renewal process, to please make sure this is done by 30 September. A form was enclosed with the annual fee-reminder, or this can be done online at www.rcvs.org.uk/registration.
Information about how veterinary surgeons removed after non-payment can restore themselves to the Register is available at www.rcvs.org.uk/registration, or by contacting the RCVS Registration Department (membership@rcvs.org.uk or 0207 202 0707).
A man who worked as a veterinary surgeon in Wiltshire, despite being neither qualified nor registered with RCVS, has received a 20-month sentence at Swindon Crown Court.
Peter Keniry (also known as Patrick Keniry), from Great Yarmouth, had been practising under the name of a properly qualified and legitimately registered veterinary surgeon, and was arrested on 23 August. At his initial hearing in Swindon Magistrates' Court, Mr Keniry pleaded guilty to charges of fraud by misrepresentation and unlawfully practising as a veterinary surgeon, and was released on bail.
At the Crown Court on Friday, Mr Keniry also pleaded guilty to additional charges before being sentenced. It is understood he will serve a number of months in prison, before being released on licence for the remaining period.
The RCVS assisted Wiltshire police in their apprehension of Keniry in August, having been alerted the previous day to his fraudulent activities. Mr Keniry is no stranger to the College or the police, having already been dealt with in 1998, 2001 and 2005 for similar offences. On each occasion, Mr Keniry has impersonated a member of the College whose name is legitimately on the Register, which makes it difficult even for practices that do check the credentials of prospective employees to pick up a problem.
Commenting on the recent sentencing, Gordon Hockey, RCVS Head of Professional Conduct said: "We are satisfied that the Court has clearly recognised the risk posed to both animal welfare and public safety by bogus veterinary surgeons. Anyone working as a veterinary surgeon when not qualified to do so, risks a custodial sentence.
"Mr Keniry's continued pattern of re-offending shows him to be a very convincing fraudster. By publicising his photograph, we hope to help any potential employer or locum agency reduce the chances of this happening again," he added.
Chris will also be donating any money he raises throughout the course of his Presidency to those same charities.
His chosen charities are: Vetlife, Riding for the Disabled Association (RDA), the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals (PDSA), Hearing Dogs, and The Gambia Horse and Donkey Trust (GHDT).
Chris said: "I chose the charities because I'm dedicated to charities that have a wide effect. The GHDT and the PDSA, by improving the health and welfare of animals, directly benefit the health and wellbeing of the communities in which they work. The GHDT dramatically improves peoples’ lives economically by increasing the working lives of their animals, almost all of which are transport animals, while the PDSA enhances the lives of the less well off by allowing them to keep animals and afford their veterinary care.
"Riding for the Disabled Association and Hearing Dogs for the Deaf then both use animals to help people, strengthening this vital human animal bond that runs through all of these charities. You have to witness the interaction between deaf or disabled people with the dogs and ponies respectively to fully appreciate how much this means to them. Unlike single interventions, these charities provide assistance that keeps on giving.
"Finally, none of this is possible without a healthy veterinary community and Vetlife plays a significant part in ensuring this. Good mental health and wellbeing is essential to the delivery of a good service, and it's important that we do everything we can to ensure that any veterinary professionals that suffer get the assistance they need.”
The charities have already been in touch to thank Chris and the College, and to detail how it will help their activities.
Graham Dick, Vetlife’s Honorary Treasurer, said: “Vetlife is currently expanding its vital support services to meet the changing needs of the veterinary community so we are sincerely grateful that Chris Tufnell has chosen our charity to benefit from his fundraising activities during his year as President. It is heartening that all the major veterinary organisations are so supportive of Vetlife and eager to work together to address the issues that many people in the veterinary community are struggling with."
Heather Armstrong, the Director of the GHDT, said: "We would like to give our very sincere thanks to Chris Tufnell, President of the RCVS for choosing us as one of his charities. Over the years we have relied on volunteer vets from UK to provide training to our staff and to Gambian livestock workers. This is helping to increase Gambian veterinary capacity and we hope is also giving British vets a small insight into global veterinary problems. The British veterinary profession should be very proud, it has enabled us to achieve so much in the last 14 years and we are immensely grateful to each and every vet who has been out to help including Chris, who has kindly helped us in the past with training."
Rosie Gibbons, Challenge & Community Events Fundraiser UK at the PDSA, said: "The donations received through the RCVS’ President’s Fund to PDSA will ensure that someone’s much loved pet will receive the treatment and healthy life they deserve. It will also ensure that our veterinary teams can continue to educate people about responsible pet ownership and issue preventative treatments, making the lives of so many animals much more bearable in the future."
Sal Atkinson, Fundraising Manager for the RDA, said: "We are thrilled that Chris has chosen RDA as one of this year’s RCVS President’s Fund charities. RDA relies on voluntary donations such as this to enable us to provide life changing therapy through horses to disabled adults and children in the UK. We currently have over 3,000 horses and ponies who work with our riders, carriage drivers, volunteers and equine advisors and this support will really help us to offer more opportunities to disabled people in the community."
The President’s Christmas Box donation is made every year in lieu of sending out RCVS Christmas cards. Previous recipients have included Worldwide Veterinary Service, Mind, Canine Partners, Hounds for Heroes, and the Veterinary Benevolent Fund.
The dispensation was originally introduced during the spring 2020 lockdown to safeguard animal health and welfare, the health and safety of the veterinary team, and public health, by allowing prescriptions to be made by veterinary surgeons without their having first physically examined the animal, subject to conditions and safeguards.
The RCVS says the Committee considered the ongoing challenges posed by Covid-19 and recognised that staff absences due to isolation requirements were still causing issues.
However, given the relaxation of the requirement to work from home in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland and relaxation of restrictions generally across the UK, the Committee felt it was time to end the dispensation.
Chair of the Standards Committee, Dr Melissa Donald MRCVS, said: “The safety and wellbeing of veterinary professionals, as well as the health and welfare of the animals they care for, have remained uppermost in our minds when considering this temporary position on remote prescribing.
“We are pleased to have been able to support the professions through a very difficult time by introducing this dispensation, however, it was only ever a temporary measure and, given the relaxation of restrictions across the UK, we feel the time has come to revert to our usual guidance.
“We will continue to keep the position under review in light of any changes, including governments’ advice and regulations, as we have throughout the pandemic.”
Currently Principal of the Royal Veterinary College, University of London, and previously Dean of the University of Glasgow’s School Of Veterinary Medicine, Stuart has been a member of RCVS Council since 2005, and served as RCVS President in 2014-15.
As chair of the Education Policy and Specialisation Committee in 2011, Stuart oversaw the College’s review of veterinary specialisation, which also led to the new Advanced Practitioner status.
He has also been a driving force behind the joint RCVS and BVA Vet Futures project since its inception in 2015.
As Chair of the RCVS Governance Panel, he recently saw through reform of the College’s governance arrangements to improve the efficiency and accountability of its decision-making processes.
Stuart has also chaired the RCVS Science Advisory Panel.
He continues to chair the College’s Mind Matters Initiative, which aims to improve the mental health and wellbeing of all those in the veterinary team.
A particularly notable achievement during his Presidential year was to allow UK veterinary surgeons to use the courtesy title ‘Doctor’ if they so wished.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS Chief Executive said: "We have been incredibly fortunate to have someone of Stuart’s calibre, character and international renown on our Council for so many years. His contributions and commitment to the RCVS, as well as to the wider veterinary professions, are as significant as they are often understated.
"On behalf of RCVS Council and all the staff, I should like to say how delighted we are that he has been honoured in this way. Such recognition is very much deserved and we send him our warmest congratulations."
The RCVS has announced a total of £1 million funding to address mental health and wellbeing within the veterinary profession over the next five years.
The RCVS Operational Board has agreed £100K of funding for the first year of the Mind Matters initiative, with a view to a similar amount per year for the subsequent four years.
Additionally, the College says it intends to contribute approximately £500K over the next five years to the Veterinary Surgeons' Health Support Programme (VSHSP). This is a continuation of previous funding, effectively doubling the College's contribution. The VSHSP, independently run by the Veterinary Benevolent Fund, offers a confidential service that aims to combat problems with alcohol, drugs, eating disorders and other addictive and mental health issues. Neil Smith, Mind Matters' Chair said: "I am delighted that we have £500K of new funding over the next five years to dedicate to improving the mental health and wellbeing of the veterinary team, together with the increase to our support for the VSHSP. It shows the College's commitment in this vital area, and is a substantial amount that will really help change lives."
The funding will be reviewed annually as part of the RCVS budgeting process.
Mind Matters activities will fall into five streams:
Mind Matters is supported by a taskforce comprising the Veterinary Benevolent Fund, the British Veterinary Association, the British Veterinary Nursing Association, the Veterinary Practice Management Association, the Veterinary Schools Council, the Veterinary Defence Society, the Society of Practising Veterinary Surgeons and the Association of Veterinary Students.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has released a series of photographs taken at its last council meeting on 7th March 2013.
Anyone for a photo-caption competition?
The full album can be seen here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rcvs/sets/72157633046308352/
The recommendations were proposed by the Legislation Working Party (LWP), which was set up in 2017 to consider the principles governing any new legislation affecting veterinary regulation and come up with recommendations for what innovations could and should be included in any future replacement for the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966.
The LWP comprises members of RCVS Council, RCVS staff and representatives from the BVA and the BVNA.
The approved recommendations were grouped into five key headings: embracing the vet-led team; enhancing the veterinary nurse role; assuring practice standards; introducing a modern ‘fitness to practise’ regime; and, modernising RCVS registration processes.
The recommendations include:
Professor Stephen May, RCVS Council member and Chair of the LWP since its inception in 2017, said: “The scale of the changes that are recommended in this report are very significant indeed and, if implemented via new primary legislation, would really change the face of veterinary regulation, bringing it up to date with that of other healthcare professions, and ironing out many of the oddities and closing many of the gaps in our current regulatory regime.
"Changes to the legislative framework for veterinary regulation have been mooted for some time. While the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 has served the profession well for over 50 years, and we have been able to make some changes to it – for example, reducing the size of Council, the separation of the Disciplinary Committee from Council and introducing the concept of delegation to veterinary nurses via Schedule 3 of the Act. However, there are limits to how much we can continue to tinker around the edges, and it has become increasingly clear that new legislation is needed if we are to make progress.
"I have been very grateful to my colleagues on the Legislation Working Party for their hard-work over the past three years. There has been a lot of robust debate on how we can move veterinary regulation forward, but ultimately we have a consensus that there are significant deficiencies, imperfections and blind-spots in the current regime and, in order to ensure that the professions are able to best fulfil their mandate to protect animal health and welfare, and that the RCVS is able to meet its mission to set, uphold and advance veterinary standards, significant changes are needed.
"I am delighted that members of RCVS Council have agreed to put our recommendations to a full consultation and I look forward to seeing how this report and its, sometimes quite radical, recommendations will spark important debate of these big ideas.”
A full public consultation process on the recommendations is expected to take place later this year. After this has taken place, and depending on its outcome, and Council’s final decision on how to proceed, a full set of proposals on legislative reform will be put to the Department for the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs in the hope of seeking support for new legislation.
While RCVS Council approved, in principle, the report as a whole, there was a separate debate on some of the report’s recommendations concerning reform to the RCVS disciplinary regime which do not require changes to primary legislation, but could be made through powers granted to the College via its 2015 Royal Charter. Further details on this will be announced separately.
The full Report of the LWP is available to view in the papers for the June 2020 meeting of RCVS Council at: www.rcvs.org.uk/document-library/rcvs-legislation-working-party-report-to-council-2020
The RCVS has also published a blog from Professor Stephen May explaining, in more detail, the workings of the LWP and the rationale behind its recommendations. This is available to view at: www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/blog/a-step-change-in-veterinary-regulation
Professor May’s presentation from the Council meeting is also available to view on the RCVS YouTube channel at www.youtube.com/rcvsvideos
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded Gloucestershire veterinary surgeon Adele Lewis for failing to pass on information about a horse’s clinical history to a potential buyer during a pre-purchase examination.
Ms Lewis, the sole principal of the Cotswold Equine Clinic in Lechlade, Gloucestershire, carried out the examination of a pony called Luke on 13 February 2014. Luke was owned by Mrs Booth who was a long-established client of Ms Lewis, both at her previous practice, Bourton Vale, and at her current practice. The examination was carried out on behalf of the prospective purchaser, Mrs Grieve.
Upon examination Ms Lewis certified that, in her opinion, Luke’s veterinary history did not increase the risk of purchase.
Following the purchase of Luke, Mrs Grieve attempted to obtain insurance for Luke and found out from a pet insurance company that a claim had been made by Mrs Booth in September 2013. She subsequently found out that, following concerns expressed by Mrs Booth and her trainer about Luke’s movement and their wanting an expert opinion, Ms Lewis had referred him to Dr Kold, a Specialist in Equine Orthopaedics, in September 2013. Dr Kold had diagnosed Luke with lameness and had given him intra-articular medication. Luke had also had a follow-up appointment with Dr Kold about four weeks later in October 2013.
The Disciplinary Committee hearing commenced on Tuesday 13 October 2015. At the outset, Ms Lewis admitted several parts of the charges (charge A and charge B) against her. In regards to charge A, she admitted that she had failed to inform Mrs Grieve that, when she examined Luke on 24 September 2013, his then owner Mrs Booth had complained firstly that Luke was “not tracking up and going forward” and, secondly, that he had improved significantly when put on a Phenylbutazone trial. She also admitted that she had referred him to Dr Kold for a poor performance investigation and that she ought to have informed Mrs Grieve of these matters.
In regards to charge B, she admitted that she completed a Certificate of Veterinary Examination in which she had declared that Luke’s veterinary history did not increase the risk of purchase and allowed the vendor’s declaration to include assertions that there had been no previous lameness and no intra-articular medication given in the last 12 months. Ms Lewis admitted that she ought to have known that her declaration that Luke’s veterinary history did not increase the risk of purchase was incorrect.
However, Ms Lewis denied being aware that Dr Kold had diagnosed lameness, administered an intra-articular corticosteroid to Luke and examined and noted a problem with his breathing, including upper airway disease and possible lower airway disease. Furthermore, she denied dishonesty in regards to both the charges against her and in relation to vendor declarations made on the Certificate of Veterinary Examination regarding previous lameness and intra-articular medication.
During the course of the hearing, Ms Lewis told the Committee that she had not received the reports about the two consultations by Dr Kold (despite their having been sent to her by letter and, with respect to the second report, also by email) and that she was therefore unaware of his findings when she carried out the pre-purchase examination. She also stated that she had not been informed of these by Mrs Booth. During her evidence, Ms Lewis also admitted having entered inaccurate information on a veterinary report to assist with an insurance claim.
The Committee did not find Ms Lewis to be an impressive witness citing the fact that her “explanations as to her practice showed a worrying absence of probity in the completion of veterinary reports for the purposes of insurance claims, and an absence of any effective practice management, consistent with acceptable practice.”
However, the Committee felt it did not have the evidence to conclude that Ms Lewis had acted dishonestly during the pre-purchase examination. It cited the fact that her actions, when informed by the purchaser Mrs Grieve of Dr Kold’s examination, did not appear to be those of someone trying to cover their tracks.
In regards to charge A, the Committee also found that the “apparently chaotic manner in which Ms Lewis ran her practice, and her own opinion that the pony was sound, would appear to have led her to wrongly disregard these matters from disclosure.”
In making its decision on her conduct and sanction, the Committee said that Ms Lewis’ failure to fully communicate to Mrs Grieve all the relevant information about Luke’s veterinary history fell far short of the conduct expected from a veterinary surgeon. It also cited the utmost importance of a complete and accurate certification process, as made clear in the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct and the Twelve Principles of Certification.
Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee continues to emphasise the importance of maintaining the integrity of veterinary certification in any aspect of practice. Mrs Grieve told this Committee that if she had been fully informed about Luke’s veterinary history she would not have purchased the pony. It is clear from the evidence that it affected Mrs Grieve’s ability to insure the pony. Ms Lewis has accepted that the information about Luke’s veterinary history, not having been disclosed, was capable of affecting the risk of purchase. The public are entitled to rely upon veterinary surgeons providing complete and accurate information, when certificates and reports are prepared.”
In mitigation, the Committee paid regard to Ms Lewis’ inexperience at running her own practice and found no issue with her competence or clinical ability as a veterinary surgeon. It concluded that she had acted out of character and that there was no financial motivation for her actions. It also found it “highly relevant that the facts admitted and found proved related to a single pre-purchase examination.”
It also noted that Ms Lewis has now put in place a practice management system and has shown insight into her actions, by taking active steps to better comply with her obligations under the Code of Professional Conduct. She had also made early admissions of guilt and made a full apology to both Mrs Grieve and the RCVS both at the outset of the hearing, and in her evidence.
Chitra Karve added: “Having had the opportunity of observing her demeanour at this hearing, the Committee believes that it is unlikely that she will repeat her conduct.... The Committee has concluded that an appropriate and proportionate response in this case is to reprimand Ms Lewis.”
Lucy Evans and Jamie Hollis, who work in the RCVS Professional Conduct Department, will join RCVS Trust Director Cherry Bushell to raise funds in the British 10K London Run on 12 July.
None of the three runners have run any kind of race since their school sports days - and are appealing for support as they aim to raise at least £300 each for the Trust.
To sponsor a runner, you can log onto http://www.justgiving.com/rcvstrust and, if you are a UK tax-payer, this also means the Trust gets your tax back. Or, if you prefer to send a cheque, sponsorship forms are available from info@rcvstrust.org.uk or 020 7202 0743.
Lucy said: "The RCVS Trust is a great charity which supports veterinary education and has specialist library and information services for vets and VNs to use. Small charities like the Trust can get overlooked in big fundraising events so I'm glad to be able to help out - even if the thought of running 10K is a bit daunting!"
The race will be broadcast through the British 10K London Run website: http://www.thebritish10klondon.co.uk/.
Pam Mosedale, Lead Practice Standards Scheme Assessor, said: “We are very sorry for any inconvenience this may cause, but based on the UK Government’s advice and our duty of care to our team of Assessors, as well as team members and clients at veterinary practices, our only option was to postpone and reschedule all visits in the short-term.
"Although we have cancelled all assessments until the end of April, we will be constantly monitoring the situation over the coming weeks, and it is likely that there may be some further postponement of assessments planned for May and beyond."
The Veterinary Medicines Directorate, which carries out assessment inspections of veterinary premises that are not within the ambit of the Practice Standards Scheme, has also confirmed that it has postponed its forthcoming inspections. Further information can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-vmd-remains-open-for-business.
The RCVS Practice Standards Team can be contacted on pss@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0767 for further advice.
Dr Thomason initially denied both heads of charge, but on the third day of the hearing he changed his plea and admitted the charge in its entirety.
The first part of the charge related to the fact that the seller of the horse was a both a client of Dr Thomason’s practice and a personal friend of his, and he therefore had a potential and/or actual conflict of interest.
Dr Thomason did not disclose this professional and personal relationship to the prospective purchaser before the pre-purchase exam.
The prospective purchaser only discovered Dr Thomason’s relationship with the seller when reading the vetting certificate at home, and stated that, in the past, she had had a similar experience in which the horse was then found to be lame. She later found out the extent of the personal relationship, when invited to join the seller on a social media site.
The Committee found that, in this set of circumstances, Dr Thomason should not have undertaken the pre-purchase exam at all, and, at the very least, disclosed his personal and professional relationship with the vendor.
The Committee also found that although Dr Thomason did have a system in place to inform any prospective purchasers if the vendor was a client of his practice, this failed to work on this occasion and neither the practice nor Dr Thomason told the prospective buyer that the seller was a client before booking the pre-purchase exam. Dr Thomason had no similar system in place to disclose any close friendships with sellers.
Dr Thomason did not consider there was a conflict of interest as he felt confident he could carry out the pre-purchase exam impartially. In addition, it was his belief that the seller had been alerted to the conflict through a system in place at his practice, implemented to safeguard against this type of error. He stated that he in no way attempted to hide his relationship with the seller to the prospective purchaser.
It was not alleged that Dr Thomason had acted dishonestly.
Ultimately, the Committee found Dr Thomason not guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "Whilst the Committee concluded that the respondent’s view of his obligations to disclose both the professional and personal relationships he had with the vendor was mistaken, it did not find any improper motivation on his part. It has already noted that he sought to disclose to the prospective purchaser through his system the fact that the vendor was a professional client of his.
"The Committee has weighed all these matters very carefully. It is for the client to determine whether or not to proceed with a PPE when in possession of all relevant facts in relation to any potential conflict of interest, and not for the veterinary surgeon to decide. The autonomy of the client must be respected. The Committee was firmly of the opinion that a failure to comply with the Code is very serious. However, taking into account the particulars of this case, the Committee does not consider that the actions of the respondent amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
The College says the online library, which is free to access, aims to encourage people to develop their leadership skills, regardless of what stage of their career they are at.
The Library has a range of materials that learners can work through at their own pace, including presentations, interviews, videos, blogs, articles and webinars on key leadership topics such as Delegation Skills, Difficult Conversations and Inclusive Leadership.
The RCVS Leadership Team will be adding more content to the library, and the profession will have opportunities to suggest topics that they would like to learn more about.
Gurpreet Gill, RCVS Leadership and Inclusion Manager, said: “In terms of veterinary CPD, importance often tends to be placed more on clinical and technical capabilities, but leadership skills are a critical aspect of every veterinary practice and organisation.
“It is also assumed that leadership is a condition of status or position, but this is not necessarily the case.
"Leadership is an everyday practice that is applicable to everyone, regardless of their role.
"The Leadership Library provides learning opportunities for anyone looking to develop and reflect on their leadership skills, which will also count towards the annual CPD requirement.”
The Leadership Library can be accessed now from https://www.rcvs.org.uk/lifelong-learning/rcvs-leadership-initiative/rcvs-leadership-library/
The RCVS has released the results of a survey which has found that increasing numbers of graduates over the last five years have had little impact on veterinary job prospects.
The survey was carried out for the RCVS by the Institute for Employment Studies, which asked the last five years' UK graduates who have registered with the College how long it took them to find work, how long they stayed in their first jobs, and why they moved on.
The online survey, which achieved a 43% response rate (1,354 responders), found that an average of 94% of graduates seeking a role in clinical practice obtained work within six months of starting to look.
The actual figure ranged from a high of 96% in 2008 to a low of 92% in 2010, and did not change significantly over the five years under consideration, despite UK graduate numbers increasing by around a quarter during the same period (from 650 in 2007, to 819 in 2012). Meanwhile, the College has registered an average of 618 overseas graduates annually during this time.
The survey did show that it was taking graduates slightly longer to secure their posts, with a shift from 85% securing work under three months in 2008, to 71% in 2012.
The results seem to suggest some small differences in the time taken for men and women to find their first jobs, with men finding jobs slightly quicker, although the vast majority of both genders found veterinary work.
Jacqui Molyneux, RCVS President said: "After the announcement from the University of Surrey that it will be opening a new vet school in the near future, there was a great deal of discussion amongst the profession about how easily new graduates could find employment. I undertook to get some real facts and am pleased to find that the picture is not as gloomy as predicted.
However, Jacqui said she was concerned that there has been a slight increase in the proportion of respondents who left their first position after a relatively short period of time. Amongst 2012 graduates, over 40% of those who had left their first position did so within three months of starting work. However it must be stressed that only 18% of those answering the survey who graduated in 2012 had already left their first position. Jacqui said: "Although the turn-over in first jobs seems to be, in part, due to an increase in temporary posts, I am saddened to see that the most commonly-cited reason for graduates leaving their first job was lack of support from their employers or professional colleagues.
"This is an area that we, as a profession, must address. As I have told all the students I have admitted to the College, their first jobs will influence their whole careers, and getting adequate support is probably the single most important factor. Meanwhile, it is heartening to see that nearly all of those moving on have obtained further employment."
Although the survey was sent to all those UK graduates who had registered with the RCVS within the last five years, the contact details for those who had subsequently de-registered may not have been up to date, which may mean that those who had de-registered because they could not find work were not well represented. However, the College says it thinks it is more likely that these individuals would have switched to the 'non-practising' category.
A summary of the headline survey results will be available at www.rcvs.org.uk/publications. The full findings, which also looked at the time taken to complete the Professional Development Phase and the type and location of work sought, will be available in due course.
The RCVS is seeking applicants for an Appointment Group which will be responsible for deciding the membership for the governing body of the new RCVS Fellowship.
In June, RCVS Council approved proposals to develop a new style Fellowship to move it away from being an examination-based award to a formal learned society with routes to entry for those veterinary surgeons who can demonstrate meritorious contributions to clinical practice, to the profession or to learning. The Fellowship by thesis route has been discontinued as of 1 August 2015, although all applications received by this route prior to that date are being processed.
The new Fellowship will be governed and administered by a Fellowship Board with an additional Credentials Panel of up to 30 members to review new applications.
The College says it is now in the process of putting together an Appointment Group which will decide the membership of the Fellowship Board and the Credentials Panel. It is currently seeking to appoint a veterinary surgeon in the earlier stage of their career to the Group. The full details of the role, including details of the person specification, how to apply and information on expenses and remuneration can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/workforus
The Group will be chaired by former RCVS President Lord Trees with other members being RCVS President Dr Bradley Viner and BVA President Sean Wensley as well as a lay observer. The first meeting of the Appointment Group is likely to take place before the end of the year and, once the Fellowship Board and Credentials Panel are established, the Group will be dissolved.
For an informal chat about the role before applying, contact Dr Simon Wallace, RCVS Education and Scientific Officer, on s.wallace@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0702.
The College says that design thinking is a problem-solving process that anyone can use in all areas of veterinary practice. It is a method by which teams can create solutions to problems or challenges using empathy, creative thinking and experimentation.
The 75-minute session will give an overview of the principles behind design thinking, its various practical stages, and how it can be used to tackle challenges and problems within everyday practice.
Sophie Rogers, RCVS ViVet Manager, said: “While design thinking may sound quite theoretical and conceptual, it is actually a very practical problem-solving process that suits busy veterinary professionals and their teams. For example, the webinar will also be applying design thinking to the current backdrop of the challenges posed by Covid-19 and will be using examples that are relevant to the veterinary world to explore how it can help overcome some of these key challenges.
“The webinar will also be interactive, with delegates being sorted into small groups to carry out tasks that bring ideas to life and demonstrate how it supports innovation and working collaboratively.”
The webinar will be hosted by Gill Stevens, the Founding Director of Level Seven, a consultancy that specialises in merging coaching with design thinking methodology as a way to support innovation and team productivity, and Rick Harris, Founder of Customer Faithful, a research-led consultancy, specialising in customer research, proposition design and employee engagement.
You can sign up to the webinar, which will count towards the continuing professional development (CPD) requirement for both veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses, via the ViVet website at: www.vivet.org.uk/design-thinking-webinar-a-practical-approach-to-problem-solving-in-veterinary-practice.
The Committee has been named after the Supplementary Royal Charter 2015 which broadened the functions of the RCVS and allowed for a more flexible approach when dealing with complaints about professional conduct.
The Charter Case Committee can resolve cases where the conduct of a veterinary surgeon or nurse has fallen far below the level of conduct expected of them, but not so far as to warrant a full, public Disciplinary Committee hearing.
The Committee can deal with such cases without the need for a public hearing and can give veterinary surgeons or nurses either a confidential or a public warning about their future conduct.
A warning issued by the Charter Case Committee does not affect the individual’s registration status or their right to practise.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: “The establishment of the Charter Case Committee plays a vitally important role in balancing our statutory role of upholding professional conduct standards and protecting animal health and welfare and public confidence in the professions, with our mission to become a compassionate regulator.
“The Charter Case Committee Protocol allows for the alternative resolution of certain cases where a veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse has engaged in behaviour that amounts to serious professional misconduct or has been convicted of an offence, but where it is not in the public interest for the matter to be referred to a hearing of the Disciplinary Committee because it is at the lower end of seriousness.
“The type of cases we envisage being dealt with by the Committee are those where the Code has been breached but where there is no ongoing risk to animal welfare or public confidence, and where the level of insight and personal reflection regarding their conduct is such that it can be resolved without the need for an onerous, stressful and expensive Disciplinary Committee hearing.
"We estimate that the CCC will deal with around 20 such cases per year.
“The most serious cases of professional misconduct will, of course, continue to be referred to Disciplinary Committee hearings.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/who-we-are/committees/charter-case-committee.
The training sessions are taking place both online and in person and places will be allocated on a first come first served basis.
Upcoming training dates are as follows:
https://www.vetmindmatters.org/training/
Designed with the RCVS Standards and Advice team, the ‘Client confidentiality’ course explains the steps veterinary teams need to take when deciding whether or not to make a disclosure, and how to remain compliant with their professional obligations under the Code of Professional Conduct.
Senior Standards and Advice Officer, Victoria Price said: “Deciding to breach confidentiality is often a difficult decision with no right or wrong answer.
"The course should help learners to feel confident about what to consider in order to make justified and well-supported decisions.”
The course takes around one hour to complete.
academy.rcvs.org.uk
The University of Edinburgh and the Royal Veterinary College (RVC) have announced a new initiative to help vet students prepare for their Extra Mural Studies (EMS) placements.
Freda Andrews, RCVS Head of Education said: "This is a free online learning tool which will look familiar to any veterinary student who has recently taken the driving theory test. Any veterinary student can use it as part of their preparation for EMS."
The project was drawn up by Dr Catriona Bell at the University of Edinburgh, and Dr Sarah Baillie at the RVC, two lecturers with experience of practice life who want to make sure that student placements work well for all concerned. The aim is that by helping veterinary students understand what will be expected of them, students can be better prepared and get the most out of their placements.
Sarah Baillie said: "We found that students aren't always aware that doing some simple practical things can make a huge difference to how well their placement goes. There are some common pitfalls, such as not taking a lunch with them so the vet has to find a shop whilst out on call, which can catch out the unwary."
Catriona Bell said that the importance of body language was a consistent theme in the research they undertook for the project: "Students want to do well, however placements are a new environment and can be tiring. Vets are not paid to provide EMS, and say they take on students as they want to support the next generation of vets. Students need to make sure they convey their interest and enthusiasm to all members of the practice team through their body language - they don't always realise, for example, what an impact slouching and looking down at the floor can have."
Other tips for students that came out of the research include making sure that you prepare thoroughly before you go, and offering to help out the veterinary nurses.
Sarah said: "We put in what real students told us they'd wished they'd known. The practising vets who support students also gave us valuable information; for example, by explaining what they expect with regards to confidentiality and professionalism, a working vet's skills."
There is no need for a sign-up for students to use the EMS Driving Licence, and veterinary practices who will be hosting EMS students may also find it useful. To try it out for yourself visit www.vet.ed.ac.uk/ems_driving_licence/