Janine Susan Parody MRCVS has been reprimanded by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for dishonesty in relation to her treatment of a cat.

Ms Parody faced two charges, the first of which related to her treatment of a cat named Shadow and had multiple elements: 

1. She failed to euthanise Shadow;
2. She failed to inform Shadow’s owner, who had presented the cat for euthanasia, that the procedure had not been carried out;
3. She undertook a treatment plan for Shadow, including sedation and castration, without informing or obtaining consent from his owner;
4. She was later involved in and/or directed the removal of a microchip from Shadow (i) when this was not clinically justified and (ii) in doing so intended to mislead others in relation to Shadow’s identity;
5. She then took Shadow home without informing or obtaining consent from his owner;
6. She failed to make any or any adequate records regarding Shadow.

The second charge was that her conduct in relation to all parts of the first charge was dishonest.

At the outset of the hearing Ms Parody’s counsel admitted to the majority of the elements of the first charge, although denied she had removed the microchip in order to mislead others about Shadow’s identity.

Ms Parody also admitted that her failures to inform the owner that euthanasia had not been carried out, of the treatment plan, of the removal of the microchip and that she had taken Shadow home was dishonest.

However, she denied dishonesty in relation to failing to make adequate records.

The Committee went on to consider the facts of the remaining, contested charges.

After hearing evidence from a number of witnesses, the Committee concluded that it was not proven that Dr Parody removed the microchip in order to mislead others about his identity, and that, in this respect, she had therefore not acted dishonestly.

In relation to whether Ms Parody was acting dishonestly in relation to failure to make adequate clinical records, the Committee also found this not proven.

Having determined the facts of the case, the Committee went on to consider if the proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In terms of aggravating factors, it considered that there was actual injury to an animal – albeit small and while the cat was under sedation - and that Ms Parody had engaged in conduct that was in breach of a client’s trust.

In mitigation, the Committee considered the immense pressure that Ms Parody and her colleagues in the practice were under at that time due to the coronavirus pandemic and the fact that she had acted in a way which she thought was best for Shadow’s welfare and which clouded the rest of her decision making.

Furthermore, the Committee considered this was a single isolated incident, that she took the decision without the opportunity for full reflection and the length of time since the original incident.

However, it found Ms Parody guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to all the proven charges.

Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “However well-intentioned, Dr Parody made some serious errors of judgment with regard to her approach to Shadow and embarked upon a course of dishonest conduct, which started with her failure to inform the owner about her decision not to euthanase Shadow, was followed by her treatment of Shadow, including his castration and microchip removal, all without the consent of the owner, and ended with her taking Shadow home over Christmas, again without the owner’s consent.

"In addition, she failed to make adequate clinical records with regards to Shadow.”

The Committee then went on to consider the most appropriate sanction for Ms Parody.

It heard a large number of positive testimonials as to her character and professionalism from both clients and former and current work colleagues.

The Committee also considered further mitigating factors such as the fact she had no previous disciplinary issues, had a long and unblemished career both before and since this isolated incident, her open and frank admissions regarding some of the charges, the significant impact she displayed regarding her misconduct, and her genuine expressions of remorse and apology.

Paul Morris added: “The Committee recognises that there is a scale of seriousness of dishonesty and therefore gave careful consideration as to where Dr Parody’s dishonest conduct fell to be judged.

"The Committee was concerned with her conduct between 20 December and 31 December 2021, as found proved.

"What led to what she has admitted as dishonest behaviour, was her acting to protect the welfare of the cat.

“The Committee was confident that she most certainly did not set out to act dishonestly.

"She made an initial error of judgement and everything that followed flowed from that.

"What she went on to do was something of a panicky attempt to cover up what she had done initially, so that she could decide on how to rectify it but, the Committee was satisfied, all done with the best of intentions and in the best interests of the cat and its owner.

"She had not acted out of any personal or financial gain or malicious intent.

"She had created a mess and she was trying to sort that mess out.”

After deciding that a reprimand was the most appropriate and proportionate sanction to impose, Paul Morris concluded: “In all the, somewhat exceptional, circumstances of this case, the Committee was satisfied that a reprimand would provide adequate protection to animals, as it was satisfied Dr Parody was most unlikely to ever make such a flawed set of decisions again.

"The Committee was satisfied that Dr Parody does not represent a risk to animals going forward, indeed from the character evidence it is clear that she always puts the welfare of animals first.

"She has also shown, since this episode, that she can work under pressure and not resort to making bad decisions and thus the Committee considered the wider public interest would be served in this case by a reprimand.”

www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

From 31 October 2008, veterinary surgeons will again be allowed to charge animal owners for writing prescriptions, when a three-year ban on such fees comes to an end.

The Supply of Relevant Veterinary Medicinal Products Order 2005 was introduced by the former Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) to implement recommendations from a 2003 Competition Commission inquiry into the supply of prescription-only veterinary medicines, which, among other things, found that prescription charges were against the public interest. It was hoped by the DTI that the move would benefit consumers by providing for pharmacies and other suppliers to have an opportunity to establish themselves as competitors to veterinary surgeons in supplying prescription-only veterinary medicines.  

Although veterinary practices will be able to make a charge for writing a prescription from 31 October 2008, one thing does not change: practices must not charge different fees for other services or veterinary medicines to those who take a prescription and those who do not.

Jill Nute, RCVS President said: "The OFT (Office of Fair Trading) will monitor the reintroduction of prescription charges and has indicated that the level of monitoring will be proportionate to the perceived need - how well the market is working.

In addition, the RCVS will monitor complaints that relate to prescription charges and meet with the OFT to review the situation in six months time. Care must be taken to ensure that prescription fees are calculated sensibly, or the zero-fee ruling may be reintroduced."

The OFT has advised that veterinary practices must not agree between themselves what constitutes a suitable fee: it is prohibited by competition law.

General guidance for members of the profession is available on RCVSonline (Advice Note 15): www.rcvs.org.uk/advicenotes.  Guidance for members of the public is also available online at:

http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/before_you_buy/thinking_about/560042/

Other Competition Commission recommendations, such as displaying a price-list of the ten relevant veterinary medicinal products most commonly prescribed during a recent period, have been enforced since 2005 via the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct and will remain in place.

The BVA has called on the RCVS to end temporary guidance that allows veterinary surgeons to prescribe POM-V products remotely without first having physically examined the animal.

In mid-September, the Association wrote to the RCVS expressing concern about the August extension to the temporary guidance.

In the latest update from the RCVS, the temporary measure has now been extended to 31 October but the flowchart and guidance have been updated to add some additional steps before a POM-V product can be prescribed remotely.

The BVA says that while it supported the original decision in March as a pragmatic solution and direct response to government restrictions surrounding Covid-19, it is now questioning the ongoing need for such a relaxation in the rules.

In the letter to the RCVS, the BVA also asked for a timeframe for the publication of the results of the RCVS survey of practices’ experiences of remote consulting and prescribing. The Association's own under care working group, chaired by Nigel Gibbens, has been developing a position to respond to the RCVS review. 

BVA President James Russell (pictured right) said: "We understand that allowing remote prescription of POM-Vs was a necessary measure at the height of the lockdown, as practices struggled to assess patients in person.

"However, the veterinary professions have done a fantastic job in adapting to the restrictions and are now able to work safely and see patients.

"Whilst we recognise the RCVS has provided additional guidance for the remote prescribing of POM-V, we cannot currently see any reason why a new client would be unable to access in-person veterinary care in the first instance and we are asking RCVS Council to reconsider this measure when it meets in Oct.

"It makes sense to continue allowing vets to remotely prescribe for existing patients, for example if an owner is shielding, but we feel it is no longer appropriate to be remotely prescribing to animals that have never been physically examined by the vet.

“The question of whether we should be able to remotely prescribe POM-V products without first seeing an animal is an important and live debate, and we welcome the resumption of the College’s review. But the longer that temporary measures are in place, the greater the expectation from animal owners that they will always be in place, and the harder it will be to have the discussion about the best way forward.

“As a profession, we are rightly concerned about antimicrobial resistance and we pride ourselves on the responsible use of medicines. Continually extending the temporary measures without a full analysis would risk undermining our position.”

The RCVS has released the results of a survey it conducted which has found that the vast majority of recent graduates from UK veterinary schools consider extra-mural studies (EMS) to be an essential component of the veterinary degree.

The survey was launched earlier this year in order to help the RCVS build up a picture of how EMS placements are currently working and whether graduates felt that they had gained knowledge and experience from placements that they could not have learnt from their core studies. Some 287 veterinary graduates from 2012 and 2013 participated in the survey, the overwhelming majority of whom (95.6%) agreed that EMS was essential.

Furthermore, the majority of the recent graduates said that they had found EMS placements to be beneficial in terms of the variety of clinical skills, professional skills and working practices they encountered. The only area in which a large number of graduates (42.9%) said that they did not find EMS placements useful was in gaining experience of out-of-hours and weekend work.

Despite the overall positive results, however, a number of concerns about EMS were raised. Issues included variable quality of placements; significant numbers of respondents feeling they were not able to gain as much 'hands-on' experience from placements as they would like; costs of accommodation and travel; and a lack of farm/mixed animal practices for placements.

Other key findings included the fact that the vast majority of veterinary students identified and booked their own placements at EMS practices and that their placements were at the type of practice they were looking for.

Christine Warman, RCVS Head of Education, said: "We launched this survey as an information-gathering exercise to see how EMS placements are currently working, following our last review of EMS in 2009 - and the results have certainly been very interesting.

"What is clear is that the current system is working well and that there is no need for an immediate review or urgent action. Most graduates found the experience gained on placements useful for their studies and find that EMS sets them up well for their first job in practice.

"However, there are a number of issues that we will keep a watching brief over and we plan to repeat the survey every two years in order to monitor these."

The full results of the survey are available to view at www.rcvs.org.uk/emssurvey2014.  Detailed guidance on EMS placements for students, university staff and EMS practices is also available at www.rcvs.org.uk/ems.

Any queries about EMS can also be directed to the RCVS Education Department on education@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0704.

The RCVS has announced that registrations for the new RCVS Register of Veterinary Practice Premises will be accepted from 1 November 2008, allowing all those who wish to supply medicines from veterinary practice premises from 1 April 2009 onwards a full five months to comply with the latest medicines legislation.

In order to fulfil its obligations under European law to maintain and improve traceability of, and accountability for, veterinary medicines, the UK Government decided that any veterinary surgeon may only supply veterinary medicinal products (VMPs) from premises registered with the Secretary of State, with effect from 1 April 2009.

The Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) is responsible for the inspection and registration of practices under the Veterinary Medicines Regulations. Steve Dean, VMD's Chief Executive, says the new veterinary practice premises register will complete the UK information base by bringing veterinary practices in line with other suppliers of veterinary medicines who already have to operate from registered premises.

The Register will enable the supply of veterinary medicines by veterinary surgeons, including controlled drugs, to be subjected to inspection and verification. As a result, DEFRA Ministers and the European Commission can be re-assured that veterinary medicines are being supplied in the UK in accordance with EC legislation.

In discussion with the VMD, it was agreed that the most appropriate body to maintain this register would be the RCVS, not least because the College already manages the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme and publishes the (voluntary) Directory of Veterinary Practices, so has the necessary systems already in place. The register will be published on RCVSonline and updated quarterly.

Whilst there will now be a statutory fee levied for each practice premises registered on the new Register, the College's existing database framework has kept this to a relatively low £40 compared to what other bodies might have had to charge after starting from scratch.

Practices could appear in the Directory for free because the cost of producing it was partially covered by subsequent data sales. However, the new Register will need to be self-funding, as the data it contains will be freely available online.

Not all practices will have to pay the statutory fee. RCVS President Jill Nute said: "For those practice premises already accredited under the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme (PSS), the fee will be taken from their existing PSS annual fee. 

"What's more, accredited practices will not face additional four-yearly inspections by VMD inspectors (unless there is an investigation for enforcement purposes) as their PSS inspections already ensure that they keep up to date with current medicines legislation."

Practice premises that have applied to join the Scheme, but have not yet been accredited, will not face additional VMD inspections either, but will still need to pay the statutory fee.

To help practices understand the new requirements and what they need to do before next April, the RCVS has produced a range of guidance, including a series of Frequently Asked Questions (www.rcvs.org.uk).

"In particular, we hope this guidance will help to explain which premises are likely to be considered ‘veterinary practice premises' and the difference between those premises and places where medicines might simply be stored or kept," said Mrs Nute.

"It is important to realise that there is a legal requirement to register veterinary practice premises for the supply of medicines, and a professional obligation, set out in the Guide to Professional Conduct, to keep a record of where all medicines are stored or kept. This record should avoid the need for additional registration of car boots, farms and homes."

Over the coming weeks, application forms will be posted to all practices currently listed in the Directory and accredited under the PSS, containing all the practice information currently held. These forms must be checked, signed and returned, even if no fee is due. Separate application forms will be available for any non-accredited practice premises not published in the Directory, and a letter will be sent to all RCVS members to ensure the whole profession is aware of the new requirements.

The RCVS has announced that it has joined forces with the Doctors’ Support Network (DSN) to launch the ‘&me’ campaign which aims to tackle mental health stigma in the health professions by encouraging prominent members to speak out about their own experiences.

The campaign was officially launched at an event at the Palace of Westminster sponsored by Kevan Jones MP (Labour, North Durham) who has spoken about his own experiences with depression, and featured first-hand testimonials from senior veterinary surgeons and doctors who have experienced mental ill-health.

‘&me’ is a collaboration between the RCVS Mind Matters Initiative, which seeks to address mental health and wellbeing issues within the veterinary profession, and the Doctors’ Support Network, which provides peer support for doctors and medical students with mental health concerns.

Introducing the campaign, Mr Jones said: "The key message I have today in regards to mental health is talking about it and trying to get it out of the dark corners rather than it being something you are ashamed to talk about. That is how we get people to help themselves with their own condition and to seek help. The other key thing is not to write people off if they have a mental illness."

The floor was then opened to personal stories from those who have lived experience of mental ill-health. Dr Louise Freeman is Vice-Chair of the Doctors’ Support Network and was diagnosed with depression in 2009 as a result of the way in which her return to work was handled after having time off work as an emergency medicine consultant following a bereavement.

She said: "This experience made me think that doctors with mental health problems were in a small minority and that it was probably our own fault anyway. Both impressions are completely wrong. The incidence of mental health problems is one in four people in any one year and is actually higher for doctors, who are often slower to seek help than non-medics. The good news is that well supported doctors have excellent treatment outcomes.

"During my own return to work, I was told by my clinical lead that they had 'always thought that I was a mental health problem waiting to happen.' I think this says more about them than it did about me! On reflection, yes that was true, but only inasmuch as this applies to all of us during our lives.

"I hope that the ‘&me’ campaign can start to address this by encouraging senior healthcare professionals, who are currently well, but have experienced mental health problems, to disclose that they have 'been there themselves'. I think that this will help to normalise mental ill health for healthcare professionals and therefore remove some of the barriers to unwell professionals seeking help at an earlier stage. Overall this would be better for healthcare professionals, their colleagues and their patients."

David Bartram, Director of Outcomes Research for the international operations of the largest global animal health company and a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' governing Council, spoke next. He gave his perspective on coming to terms with a mental health condition in a profession that has some stigma attached to it.

A number of years ago David attempted suicide following the breakup of his marriage and explains what happened from there: "I just thought I was stressed – after all, who wouldn’t be in those circumstances? But in fact I was becoming progressively more unwell. What started as worry, early waking and palpitations – which I recognised – led to patterns of thinking which I did not recognise as being disordered. I felt trapped and worthless – suicide was the only escape. From a medical perspective, my biological, social and psychological risk factors had converged and tipped me into major depression.

"That was the first of multiple suicide attempts and several prolonged stays in hospital. Over a three-year period I spent 12 months as a psychiatric inpatient. I was treated with antidepressants, antipsychotics, mood stabilisers, talking therapies and electroconvulsive therapy.

"But now thankfully I am well – and I have been for 14 years…. To what do I attribute my recovery? A mixture of medical treatment, psychological therapies, supportive friends and family, rest and time – they all contributed, probably in similar measure." 

He added that while his episode of mental ill-health does not define him it has changed him in a positive way and that no one is immune from it.

Dr Jonathan Richardson is Group Medical Director for Community Services at the Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust who had a mental health condition when he was a medical student and spoke about how it is possible to flourish in your career with a mental health diagnosis.

"I was unwell as a teenager with a physical illness and later as a medical student with a mental illness… these two experiences crystallised my drive to become a doctor and my own approach to healthcare. I wanted to be able to deliver the care that I was fortunate to receive. I wanted to be as patient-centred and compassionate with the patients I would serve, in the same way as the teams who delivered my care. I was lucky to have support when I was unwell from very good friends, some from school and some from university; and a very close family. I have been able to recover.

"It is 24 years since my mental illness. I now work in Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust, one of the largest mental and learning disability health trusts in England – and one of only two to be rated outstanding by the Care Quality Commission…. I do not feel that my illnesses have stopped me."

Dr Angelika Luehrs is the chair of the Doctors’ Support Network and a consultant psychiatrist who was diagnosed with bipolar affective disorder while she was a trainee psychiatrist. She said: “When I asked for advice about how to access help one of the answer I got was one of ‘whatever you do, make sure that you don't have any mental illness in your medical records otherwise you will never go anywhere in your medical career. However, getting the diagnosis and help from a Consultant Psychiatrist was the best thing that ever happened.”

She added: "The reality is that my diagnosis has not stopped me – I have been a consultant psychiatrist since 2010 with the Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust, last year I was appointed as medical lead for West Wiltshire including early intervention, intensive services and primary care liaison services.  I have a special interest in supporting doctors with mental illness and I am delighted to be appointed by the newly launched GP Health Service as a special advisor for complex mental health cases."

The last speaker was veterinary surgeon Neil Smith who chairs the RCVS Mind Matters Initiative and outlined how to participate in the campaign. He said: "This event is just the start… the real challenge is to start to get this message out to the wider professions. Stigma is a difficult thing to tackle, but the good news is that changing our minds is within the power of every individual to do." 

Following the launch the ‘&me’ campaign is now encouraging other senior health professionals to step forward and talk about their own experiences with mental ill-health, especially as both medical doctors and veterinary surgeons have higher suicide rates than the general population but often have more reluctance to seek help because of the impact it may have on their career.

The campaign is interested in hearing from not only doctors and veterinary surgeons but also nurses, veterinary nurses, dentists, pharmacists and other healthcare professionals who want to open up about their experiences of mental ill-health. To participate in the campaign email Dr Louise Freeman on vicechair@dsn.org.uk.

Further information about the ‘&me’ campaign can be found at www.vetmindmatters.org/&me

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against a London-based veterinary surgeon, having found charges related to fraudulent registration not proved.

Miss Maria Becerra Parga was charged with fraudulently entering her name on the Register of Veterinary Surgeons, by submitting a registration application in 2005 that contained a forged certificate of good standing from the Distinguished Official Veterinary Association of Lugo, Spain.

The Committee said that, in order to conclude Miss Becerra Parga had acted dishonestly, it needed to be sure that when she submitted the certificate to the RCVS she knew it was not genuine.

Miss Becerra Parga admitted that she did not make any application for the certificate directly to the Lugo Association. She accepted that the certificate she supplied to the College (the number of which was genuine and corresponded to a male veterinary surgeon registered in Spain) was a forgery, and that it contained a reference to her degree, a statement of good conduct, and was dated before she had a need for it; however, she said, this had been given to her by a friend and veterinary colleague and she had understood that she had been given a temporary membership of the Lugo Association for the purpose of registering with the RCVS. She also said that she had left these arrangements to her colleague and assumed that the document she had been given was genuine.

Her colleague, called as a witness by the College, said that Miss Becerra Parga had admitted the fraud to her and she denied that she had given the certificate to Miss Becerra Parga.  Her friend said that she gave no more than general guidance because she knew that Miss Becerra Parga would be guided by a UK company that would arrange for her registration with the RCVS  and through which she would be employed. She thought it possible that she had told Ms Becerra Parga that she needed a letter of recommendation, but she was not sure. 

After careful consideration, the Committee preferred the evidence of Miss Becerra Parga and found her account to be "consistent with her naivety, inexperience and trusting nature" and "was sure that she did not forge the document herself".  It found that to the extent that Miss Becerra Parga read the certificate at all when given it, she obviously did not notice its date or significance. The Committee was not able to say who was responsible for forging the certificate.

The Committee also dismissed an argument RCVS Counsel put forward, that Miss Becerra Parga had neither offered nor made payment for the certificate, and that she had forged the certificate to avoid a payment.  The Committee said it did not find it credible that a veterinary surgeon, in work  with a supportive family, who obviously was easily able to obtain proof of her good character directly from the university if necessary, would have jeopardised her entire career by forging the document, let alone for a small financial advantage. 

The Committee directed that the charges be dismissed.

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has announced the results of the RCVS Council and Veterinary Nurse Council elections.

A record number of candidates stood in the RCVS Council election this year, and the results were much closer than usual.

Two candidates entirely new to the Council have been elected, one of whom - Amanda Boag - received the highest number of votes. The other - Chris Barker - also did well, coming in third place overall.

Three existing RCVS Council Members have been re-elected for a further four years, and Stephen May, who was formerly an appointed Council Member from the Royal Veterinary College, was also voted onto Council for the first time.

Of the three candidates standing for election to VN Council, one existing Member - Kathy Kissick - has been returned, and one new member - Elizabeth Figg - has been elected.

All successful candidates will take up or resume their seats at RCVS Day on 6 July 2012.

Turnouts for both elections remained low, with just 3,625 veterinary surgeons (15.1%) and 743 veterinary nurses (7.5%) choosing to exercise their right to vote.

By comparison, in 2011 voting figures were 3,887 (15.9%) and 723 (7.6%), respectively.

Veterinary surgeons' and veterinary nurses' use of online and text voting, rather than postal voting, increased again this year from 25% to 30.6%, and 12.9% to 20%, respectively.

The RCVS has appointed Amanda Boag as its new Treasurer, replacing Dr Bradley Viner who will become (junior) Vice-President in July.

Amanda will officially take up her post at RCVS Day - the College's Annual General Meeting and Awards Day - on Friday 11 July.

Amanda is a Clinical Director at Vets Now and is also currently President of the European Society of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care. She was elected to RCVS Council for a four-year term in 2012.

As Treasurer she will be responsible for maintaining an overview of the College's affairs, ensuring its financial viability and making sure that proper financial records and procedures are maintained.

Amanda said: "I am very honoured to have been appointed Treasurer for the RCVS and am looking forward to working closely with other Council members and the Belgravia House team.

"I would particularly like to thank my predecessor Bradley Viner for the excellent work he has done over the past four years. This has been a period of great change for the College and during his tenure he has done a huge amount of work to support the improvements in governance, including standardising the way that the College's accounts are reported.

"Our finances are currently in a healthy state despite no increase in the annual renewal fee for several years. I am now looking forward to building on his legacy and ensuring the finances remain healthy, allowing us to move forward with our Strategic Plan."

At RCVS Day on 11 July, Professor Stuart Reid will also be confirmed as President; current President Neil Smith as (senior) Vice-President; Chris Tufnell as Chairman of the Education Committee; and David Catlow as Chairman of the Standards Committee.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has ruled that whilst the care given to a diabetic dog by Paul Roger MRCVS fell short, it did not amount to serious professional misconduct. 

Mr Roger faced three charges: that he had failed to provide adequate care, failed to communicate with the owner adequately and failed to keep adequate clinical records for Honey, a Shiih Tzu dog who, it transpired, had hypergycaemia.

At the initial consultation, Mr Roger took a blood sample which showed that there was an elevated blood glucose, an elevated white blood cell count, an elevated ALT and an elevated ALP (which Mr Roger took to be indicative of liver damage secondary to infection).

Mr Roger prescribed a cholagogue (ursodeoxycholic acid), an antibiotic (Synulox) and a diuretic (Frusemide).

In its findings of fact, the Committee found it likely that Mr Roger would have realised that Honey had a potential diabetes mellitus diagnosis with an elevated blood glucose of 28.

However, Mr Roger explained that he had believed the elevated blood glucose was due to the stress Honey had undergone in taking the blood samples.

The Committee therefore accepted that Mr Roger’s actions did not indicate a complete failure by him to notice the elevated blood glucose because he had explained he believed at the time it was due to stress.

Honey’s owner took her back to the veterinary practice that Mr Roger worked at three days later.

A different veterinary surgeon examined Honey and flagged that her blood sugar was high and that her liver was damaged.

She was taken to an alternative veterinary practice for follow-up but died later that day.

Mr Roger admitted failing to ask Honey’s owner if there was a history of diabetes mellitus, failing to take repeat blood glucose tests or carry out urine analysis or carry out additional blood tests, failing to communicate adequately with Honey’s owner about the significance of the hyperglycaemia and the options for investigation/management and failing to keep adequate clinical records in regard to Honey’s blood glucose levels.

The Committee found the admitted facts proved.

The evidence presented to the Committee included the clinical notes taken during Honey’s consultations, emails sent from Honey’s owner to the RCVS outlining the complaint, and evidence from experts in small animal veterinary practice.  

Although the Committee found some matters not proved, it did find proved that Mr Roger had failed to recognise and/or pay adequate regard to Honey’s elevated blood glucose levels, had failed to manage Honey’s hyperglycaemia either by treating it or by documenting an appropriate plan to do so and had failed to communicate adequately with Honey’s owner about the significance of her elevated glucose and the reason for it.

Having reached its decision in relation to the facts, the Committee went on to consider whether the facts it had found proved either individually or cumulatively amounted to serious professional misconduct.

Judith Way, Chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf said: “The Committee found that the charges and particulars it had found proved did not amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect either individually or cumulatively.

"In its judgment, the conduct found proved fell short of the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon but not far short of the standard which is expected of the reasonably competent veterinary surgeon.”

As a result of the Committee finding that Mr Roger was not guilty of serious professional misconduct on any of the proven charges, either individually or in any combination, the hearing did not proceed further.

Alberto Fioletti has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after being jailed for life for the murder of his former partner, a veterinary nurse. 

Mr Fioletti was found guilty of the murder of Stephanie Hodgkinson at Bournemouth Crown Court in January, and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum 15 years.

The hearing for Dr Fioletti took place on Thursday 6 June, with the Committee deciding to proceed in his absence after Dr Fioletti said in correspondence that he did not want to attend the hearing nor be otherwise represented.

The Committee found the facts of the case proven by the certificate of conviction and went on to consider whether the conviction rendered Dr Fioletti unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.

Aggravating factors in terms of fitness to practise included the fact that it was an offence involving violence and loss of life and the injuries caused by Dr Fioletti to Ms Hodgkinson.

The sentencing remarks, which were cited during the disciplinary hearing, also made clear the devastating impact that Dr Fioletti’s actions had on Ms Hodgkinson’s family, including her two young children.

Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee considers that, when consideration is given to the ferocity of the attack on Ms Hodgkinson and the number of stab wounds she suffered, when taken together with the finding by the sentencing judge, who presided over the trial, that the respondent “represent[ed] a significant danger to any female with whom you find yourself in a relationship”, members of the public would find it abhorrent for a veterinary surgeon to have acted in this way and would be concerned at the risk the respondent posed to some members of the public.

“This Committee considers that the offence of murder is so inherently deplorable and shocking that it must constitute conduct falling far short of that to be expected of a member of the profession; and is certainly liable to bring the profession into serious disrepute and undermine public confidence in the profession.” 

The Committee then went on to consider the most appropriate and proportionate sanction for Dr Fioletti.

In terms of the aggravating factors in this case, Mr Morris said: “The misconduct in this case relates to a savage, sustained and ferocious attack with a weapon on a defenceless woman in her own home.

"His victim trusted him to be in her home.

"He knew that she was the mother of two young sons, of whom she had custody, and to whom he knew she was devoted.

"He would have known that the effect of his attack on her would have devastating consequences for her sons and her other close relatives – and it did.

"This conduct constitutes disgraceful conduct of the most egregious and reprehensible kind.

“The Committee also considers that the misconduct raises serious concerns about the reputation of the profession in the eyes of right-thinking members of the public.

"This was abusive and controlling conduct of the worst kind and conduct of which the respondent had been guilty of in past relationships, as the sentencing judge found.

"Such acts by their very nature run contrary to the very essence of the practice of the profession of veterinary surgery, which is intended to protect and enhance the welfare and well-being of animals and of work colleagues.”

In mitigation the Committee noted that Dr Fioletti had no previous criminal history and had a hitherto unblemished career as a veterinary surgeon.

The Committee found that only complete removal from the Register was appropriate in this case.

Paul added: “The Committee has reached the conclusion that the respondent’s behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon.

"The respondent’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 expressed its condolences to the family of Stephanie Hodgkinson for their incalculable loss.

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

Somerset-based Arturas Zukauskas MRCVS has been reprimanded by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for failing to respond to repeated requests from the College for his continuing  professional development (CPD) records.

The first part of the charge was that, between 3 November 2014 and 10 December 2016 he did not provide CPD records to the RCVS requested in four separate letters dated November 2014, September 2015, November 2015 and November 2016. The second part of the charge was that, between 11 December 2016 and 26 July 2017, he did not provide the RCVS with his CPD records despite requests.

Dr Zukauskas admitted to the charge against him at the outset of the hearing. 

The Committee considered whether Mr Zukauskas’ failure to respond to requests for his CPD records constituted serious professional misconduct.

The Committee found that he had breached the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons by not responding to the repeated requests for information from the College, although the Committee noted that there had not been total silence. Mr Zukauskas had made email contact on at least two occasions in response to RCVS letters and gave evidence that he had attempted to phone the authors of the letters. The Committee also noted that in early February 2017 Mr Zukauskas had made repeated attempts to give the RCVS access to his online CPD account, which he had been updating to reflect CPD work that he had undertaken.

Mr Zukauskas’ explanation for his failure was that he had not fully appreciated the importance of the letters, that his English was poor, and that he failed to obtain appropriate advice about the content of the letters until recently. It was only in a witness statement dated 27 July 2017 that he finally disclosed his full CPD records.

The Committee noted Mr Zukauskas' admission in his evidence that his English was not good, particularly in light of the obligation, brought into the Code in February 2016, for veterinary surgeons to be able to communicate effectively in written and spoken English.

Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "From that date, if not earlier, the respondent should have been concerned to understand English sufficiently well to address the correspondence from the College. Whilst the Committee did not consider that his conduct in this respect amounted to disrespect, it did consider that he had shown a disregard of his obligations.

"At all times he could and should have made appropriate efforts to respond to the correspondence from the College and obtain appropriate advice. In effect he put off dealing with these matters and put his head in the sand."

Regarding his failure to respond to requests between December 2016 and July 2017, Ms Karve added: "This caused the College a considerable amount of concern and extra work. Had he done so much earlier, much of this matter would have been avoided. The respondent was once again in breach of his obligations."

Having found Mr Zukauskas guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to both parts of the charge the Committee then considered its sanction against Mr Zukauskas, taking into account the fact that the Veterinary Nurse Disciplinary Committee had recently suspended a veterinary nurse from the Register for a period of two months having found her guilty of similar charges.

In mitigation the Committee considered a number of testimonials from colleagues and clients, his hitherto long and unblemished career in the United Kingdom, and his open and frank admissions and subsequent efforts to avoid repetition of his behaviour. Language problems were also considered as an explanation for why the situation had occurred. However, it also considered the aggravating factor that the misconduct was sustained over a period of time and that there was unacceptable disregard for the obligations he had to the College as a veterinary surgeon.

In summing up Ms Karve said: "The Committee has determined to impose a reprimand. In doing so it acknowledged that the respondent has shown considerable insight into his behaviour. He had acknowledged that he has needed help in communicating with the College. It noted that he is a good and proficient veterinary surgeon in the work which he undertakes. He expressed remorse for his behaviour. He has carried out sufficient CPD and since December 2016 has been communicating with the College. The Committee considers it unlikely that he will transgress again.

"The Committee has decided that it is appropriate in this case to add a warning to the decision to impose a reprimand. It is mindful of the fact that other veterinary surgeons registered with the College have a duty to discharge their CPD obligations and they honour those obligations. Moreover, the conduct of the respondent has involved a considerable amount of work and expense for the College."

The warning was that in future Mr Zukauskas must respond in a timely and appropriate manner to any communications from the RCVS.