Eleven members of staff at the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons are growing moustaches this month in support of the Movember Challenge, a campaign which raises funds to help combat prostate cancer.
Simon Wiklund, Advisory Manager and instigator of the College's participation in Movember 2010, said: "Visitors to the College over the next few weeks shouldn't be alarmed if some members of staff begin to resemble a Village People tribute band. I suggested this to the chaps last week, and was delighted so many were willing to look daft for such a good cause."
According to the Movember website, the aim is simple: "One man dies from prostate cancer every day in the UK. Movember challenges men to change their appearance and the face of men's health by growing a moustache. All MoBros should be clean shaven on 1 Movember and then grow a moustache for the entire month. The moustache becomes the ribbon for men's health, the means by which awareness and funds are raised for cancers that affect men."
The RCVS team - 'All 'Taches Great and Small' - comprises at least one member of every department in the College, so whilst the team as a whole will be raising as much money as it can, the College says it expects interdepartmental competition to get "quite hairy".
"In spite of ourselves, reputations are at stake here," admits Simon. "We're a mixed-ability team, so it will be interesting to see who sports the best tache at the end of Movember. This is no trivial hirsute."
Lending his support to the team's efforts, and off to something of a head start in the facial forestry department, is RCVS President Peter Jinman. He said: "I'm impressed that so many of the gents on the staff have taken it upon themselves to support The Prostate Cancer Charity in this way. If it's true that eight out ten chaps really do prefer whiskers, they should raise a decent amount of money."
Anyone wishing to support the All Taches Great & Small team in their bristling endeavours should please visit their fundraising pages (via www.rcvs.org.uk/movember). Donations can be made to individual MoBros, or to the team as a whole.
The RCVS has announced that it is to trial a new alternative dispute resolution scheme for users of veterinary services who have complaints which aren't serious enough to call into question a veterinary surgeon or nurse's fitness to practice.
The College says that although it is obliged to investigate all complaints, currently it can only deal with the most serious of complaints raised against a veterinary surgeon's or registered veterinary nurse's fitness to practise. This means that many of the 800 or so complaints received every year by the College's Professional Conduct Department are closed with no further action.
Nick Stace, RCVS Chief Executive Officer and Secretary, said: "It was clear from our consultations last year for the First Rate Regulator initiative that many animal owners who had made complaints were dissatisfied and frustrated with the fact that we were unable to take their, often very legitimate, concerns any further.
"It is for this reason that we decided to launch a trial in order to determine how we could develop an alternative scheme that, through conciliation, would try and resolve these disputes in a way that would be acceptable to both parties.
"Although this trial is small-scale we hope that it will provide the framework for a permanent ADR scheme which I believe would both increase consumer confidence in the profession and help maintain and preserve its reputation.
"We hope that the profession will actively support the trial, and any future scheme, as a way of resolving those intractable disputes which we know can hang over veterinary surgeons and practices and that they recognise that, ultimately, what is good for the consumer can be good for the profession."
The trial will be administered by the Ombudsman Services, an independent and not-for-profit complaint resolution service, and limited to no more than 150 concerns raised about veterinary surgeons in regards to the treatment of a small animal. In most cases concerns referred to the trial will have no arguable case for serious professional misconduct. The trial is free to the users and voluntary, and consent will be sought from both parties before the concern is referred to the Ombudsman Services. The costs of the trial will not exceed £120,000.
Recommendations will be determined through conciliation between both parties and the Ombudsman Services will only be able to suggest, rather than impose, a solution that each party is entitled to accept, or not. Solutions could include, for example, financial accommodation up to the small claims court limit of £10,000 (although the average recommendation is around £100), the issuing of an apology or other practical action to remedy the situation.
The Ombudsman Services will be assisted in its investigations by veterinary advisers who will provide guidance on clinical and other veterinary matters.
The results of the trial, which will end in May 2015, will be presented at the June 2015 meeting of RCVS Council where steps will be considered for the development of a permanent scheme.
More details about the trial can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/adr
I had hoped that the increasing absurdity of the reasons given for the rise might have tipped everyone off to the fact that the story was a spoof.
The idea that the College would ask its members to fund some glitzy, showy, award-winning designer headquarters along the lines of London’s City Hall? C’mon. London City Hall employs 1000 staff, whilst the Royal College employs less than 100. And let's face it, the RCVS has no record of having showy offices. On the contrary, it has managed to operate out of a sardine can now for a great many years. Have you ever been in the lift at Horseferry Road? You need to breathe in.
Or that the College had set aside £6M to recruit and pay 20 veterinary surgeons as short term contracted OVs to help in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Let’s say a flight from Delhi to London costs £500, give or take. Twenty vets. That’s £10,000 to get them here. Let's say they’re here for 6 months. That’s £299,500 per vet. You really think the College is going to ask you to pay more than a quarter of a million pounds to fly in a single vet for 6 months? Or that 20 recruits would solve the predicted OV shortage?
Lastly, the quote, supposedly from an Indian vet, but one with a name that doesn’t really sound like a name (still less an Indian one), but does sound strangely like it may be an anagram of April Fool.
There have been a small number of reports of people being really upset by this story. I guess they must have skim read, or only read the headline.
To them I want to say sorry, I genuinely didn’t mean to upset anyone.
In fact, I thought it might cause some reflection on what good value the RCVS really offers. It maintains the register and thereby your ability to practice, it runs the disciplinary process (an essential component of maintaining public trust), it oversees and sets educational standards, it awards Fellowships, Diplomas and Certificates, it runs the Practice Standards Scheme.
All that, and more for £340 per annum?
Honestly? I think it would be cheap at half the price.
Photo: Truth is that the RCVS has operated out of a sardine can for years.By Rl - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has severely reprimanded and warned as to his future conduct a veterinary surgeon who failed to make sufficient enquiries about the location or condition of a cat; unreasonably refused to provide it with first aid and pain relief; and failed to provide it with adequate 24-hour emergency care.
Following a three-day hearing, the Committee found Marcus Kutschera, of South London Emergency Veterinary Centre, Streatham, guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to events on 16 May 2011. Mr Kutschera was Clinical Director of the practice, which provided out-of-hours emergency services to several London veterinary practices. At about 1.45am, the practice received two telephone calls from a representative of a registered charity about a cat, which the caller considered should be seen by a veterinary surgeon as soon as possible. The charity was itself a client of one of the practices whose out-of-hours emergency services were provided by the South London Emergency Veterinary Centre. The cat was later euthanased by the RSPCA.
After listening to a recording of a telephone call between a representative of the charity and Mr Kutschera, during which Mr Kutschera failed to ask about either the condition or location of the cat, the Committee was in no doubt that the caller believed Mr Kutschera would not see the cat unless he was able to pay when it was presented. The Committee said that, once the telephone call had been received, the primary responsibility of the veterinary surgeon was the welfare of the animal, and Mr Kutschera had no good reason not to see the cat or to follow the procedures set out in the Guide to Professional Conduct 2010. If he had made proper inquiries, he would have been able to make a provisional diagnosis that the cat was likely to be euthanased. Mr Kutschera was guilty of unreasonably refusing to provide first aid and/or pain relief to the animal, and of failing to provide adequate 24-hour emergency care.
The Committee concluded that Mr Kutschera's conduct fell far short of that to be expected of a veterinary surgeon. Although he did recommend that the cat should be taken to the RSPCA, his primary concern was the ability of the client to make a payment on presentation of the cat, and not the animal's welfare. He had a responsibility for ensuring that proper emergency cover was provided.
In mitigation, the Committee noted that the event was a single, short telephone call between Mr Kutschera and the client in the early hours of the morning, and there was no evidence to suggest similar behaviour on his part on other occasions. Mr Kutschera accepted that he made no inquiries into the cat's condition or location, and the Committee accepted that he had shown some insight into what went badly wrong. He said that he had subsequently changed his practice when speaking to clients on the telephone. The Committee also took account of the impact on Mr Kutschera of the case hanging over him since the complaint was made in August 2011 and, as the cost of the Disciplinary Committee inquiry was not covered by his professional indemnity insurance, he had taken on a substantial financial commitment to pay for legal representation.
Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "The primary purpose of the sanction is not to punish but to protect the welfare of animals, maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards of conduct. Whilst there are undoubted financial issues that can arise in the operation of an out-of-hours service, the primary responsibility of the veterinary surgeon is for the welfare of the animal."
The Committee recommended that Mr Kutschera undertake, within 12 months, continuing professional development training, with a particular emphasis on animal welfare, ethics and client care, in the context of providing out-of-hours services. It imposed on Mr Kutschera the sanction of a severe reprimand and a warning as to his future conduct.
The RCVS is seeking feedback on a new draft Code of Professional Conduct.
The new Code, which would replace the existing RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons, has been produced by a Working Party set up by the RCVS Advisory Committee to review the Guides for both veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.
According to the College, the purpose of the review, which last took place over a decade ago, is to ensure guidance to the profession and the public is clear. For example, using consistent language to distinguish between what must be done and what is advised.
The RCVS says the new Code is a short, principles-based document using the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe's Code of Conduct as the starting point. It will be supported by additional advice on specific areas of veterinary practice or issues, for example, clinical governance. It also includes:
Clare Tapsfield-Wright, Chairman of the Guides Review Working Party said: "Over the decade or so since it was last reviewed, not only has the Guide become unwieldy in places, but the way that regulators in general publish professional conduct rules has changed. Our draft new Code aims to clarify matters and bring us into line with best practice elsewhere.
"Animal owners are increasingly keen to understand the basis of what the veterinary profession considers to be good professional conduct. The new simplified Code should assist with this understanding."
The new Code, together with the consultation paper, can be downloaded at http://www.rcvs.org.uk/codeconsultation
Comments, which are welcomed from the profession and the public, should be sent by email to Christopher Murdoch, Secretary to the Guides Review Working Party, at c.murdoch@rcvs.org.uk by Friday, 24 June 2011.
A separate document is under development for veterinary nurses, which will share broadly similar underlying principles and will be the subject of its own consultation.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed an application to be restored to the Register of Veterinary Surgeons from former Wirral-based vet Ian Beveridge.
In May 2013 the Committee had asked the Registrar to remove Mr Beveridge from the Register following a four-day hearing in which he was found guilty of serious professional misconduct after finding that he had treated clients badly, kept inadequate clinical records, was dishonest in his dealings with the RCVS and that animals in his care were placed at risk.
In June 2013 Mr Beveridge, who was not present or represented at the original hearing, then appealed the decision. The appeal was withdrawn in May 2014 which was when Mr Beveridge was formally removed from the Register.
Then, in April 2015, Mr Beveridge applied to be restored to the Register. The Disciplinary Committee met to consider his application in June 2015, however, this hearing was adjourned after new evidence was served to the Committee concerning allegations that Mr Beveridge had ordered prescription-only veterinary medicines when he was not authorised to do so. He was subsequently interviewed by police who took no further action.
In deciding whether Mr Beveridge was fit to be restored to the Register, the Committee heard evidence in regards to the circumstances in which the prescription-only drugs were ordered using his account and delivered to his former practice address which had been taken over by Medivet after he sold the premises to the company.
During the course of the hearing, Mr Beveridge admitted that his account had been used to buy the drugs, but that a part-time member of his staff, who was neither a veterinary surgeon nor a veterinary nurse, had done so without his prior knowledge or approval.
In relation to this evidence Ian Green, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee, said: "The Committee takes the view that the unauthorised use of a veterinary surgeon’s drugs account for which he carries the ultimate responsibility is a very serious matter and, of itself, demonstrates that the applicant has at best a cavalier attitude to his work which of itself means that he remains unfit to be on the Register.
"This attitude is further demonstrated by the fact that, even after the first orders were placed in late April and early May 2014, the applicant did not seek clarification from the College of his status following the withdrawal of his appeal against the original Committee’s findings."
In addition to this, the Committee also considered the seriousness of his original failings, the fact that Mr Beveridge’s acceptance of these failings was ‘qualified’, that he had been off the Register for 20 months and the fact that his efforts in terms of continuing professional development had been inadequate and not focused on those areas in need of improvement, among other factors. In mitigation it did consider that Mr Beveridge had demonstrated genuine remorse about previous actions and noted a petition and a large number of letters in support of him from former clients of his practice.
However, the Committee felt that this did not detract from the seriousness of the original failings and, in conjunction with the subsequent unauthorised ordering of veterinary drugs, that the application for restoration must be dismissed.
A paper introduced by the RCVS Registrar Eleanor Ferguson looked at the possibility of the RCVS prosecuting, for example, unqualified individuals undertaking veterinary work and courses falsely purporting to lead to a registerable qualification.
The paper also explored other options, including better educating animal owners about veterinary services and assisting people with concerns about the breaches of the VSA to raise them with the authorities.
Council heard that over the past year, the RCVS had assisted other agencies on investigations of suspected VSA breaches on a number of occasions.
It was considered that the RCVS could consider undertaking its own private investigations and criminal prosecutions when statutory prosecuting authorities did not have the resources to pursue these cases.
However, the RCVS has no statutory powers of investigation, so if it did pursue a private prosecution, it would have no powers to carry out a criminal investigation or compel evidence.
Council members voted for a further paper setting out a draft policy on private prosecutions, as well as what general information regarding breaches of the Veterinary Surgeons Act could be provided to members of the public and the professions.
The mandatory regulation of veterinary practices, including statutory powers of entry and inspection, is one of the main parts of the College's proposals for new primary legislation that would replace the current Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966.
The working group, which is expected to present the details of a Mandatory Practice Regulation system to Council by the end of 2024, will be chaired by RCVS President Sue Paterson FRCVS.
It will include Standards Committee Chair Linda Belton MRCVS and Practice Standards Group Chair Belinda Andrews-Jones RVN, alongside veterinary, veterinary nursing, lay and external representatives.
Sue said: “With over 70% of practice premises currently under its ambit, our Practice Standards Scheme (PSS) has shown how keen practices are to maintain high standards.
"However, it is a voluntary scheme and, as a result, there is no mechanism to ensure standards across all practices, or to ensure change in those rare situations where it is needed.
“At present, the RCVS only regulates individual veterinary surgeons and nurses, and the veterinary sector does not have an equivalent to the Care Quality Commission, which considers human healthcare premises.
"This means that the onus for maintaining standards within the workplace falls on regulated individuals rather than the business structure.
"We will consider what a scheme that puts more statutory responsibility on business owners to maintain standards should look like.
“I look forward to working with colleagues in RCVS Council, VN Council and other veterinary organisations via this group to really flesh out what this regulatory system might look like in the future, to make sure it is appropriate, robust, proportionate and enforceable.
"Establishing these details will also prove invaluable in our lobbying work with government, ministers and MPs.”
A bogus vet who pleaded guilty to a number animal cruelty and fraud offences is being sought by Humberside Police after he failed to appear at court for sentencing.
Jayson Paul Wells (pictured right), 30, of Driffield in the East Riding of Yorkshire, is wanted by detectives in Grimsby after he failed to appear at Grimsby Crown Court.
The RCVS assisted Humberside Police with its original investigation and is publicising its appeal to help locate Mr Wells. Police believe that he may be trading as a herdsman in Nottingham or Cornwall and are keen to establish whether he is currently in either location.
Mr Wells was arrested on 2 October 2013 and charged with the following offences:
Mr Wells pleaded guilty to all offences.
Anyone who is aware of his whereabouts is asked to call Humberside Police on 101 or call Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111.
The Prince's Trust 'creates life-changing opportunities' for those aged 11-30 and Nick has long-held a passion for making a difference to young lives. He has set up three charities for young people: with learning disabilities; who want to campaign to change the world; and who want to break down the barriers to enjoying nature and the outdoors.
Nick has led the RCVS since September 2012. During his tenure, developments at the College include a new Royal Charter, major governance reform, improved regulation of veterinary nurses, the instigation of Vet Futures, the introduction of the alternative dispute resolution service, significant evolution within the Practice Standards Scheme, the refocusing of RCVS Trust into RCVS Knowledge, the launch of Mind Matters, and the recognition of the College as a Great Place to Work.
Nick said: "It has been a great privilege to be CEO of the College and to work with such amazing staff, such a progressive Council and such a decent and caring profession. It is no surprise to me that vets and vet nurses are among the most trusted professionals in this country, and in my view this is due to their professionalism and to the excellence of the Royal College in maintaining and advancing standards. I hope I have played my part in helping the College and the profession navigate through a period of great change and preparation for significant change to come.
"At The Prince’s Trust I will be focused on the next generation, helping to give young people the confidence and purpose they need to make a success of their lives and the world around them. I know from my own personal experiences of school, and the various charities with which I have been involved, how many young people are not given the best chance in life. I cannot think of a better mission to take on."
RCVS President Chris Tufnell said: "I feel very fortunate to have worked closely with Nick over his five years with the RCVS; he has made a tremendous contribution to the College and our professions. With his energy and drive, he has infused the College with a culture of openness, engagement and dedication and has inspired the team through some impressive achievements.
"Nick’s leadership will enable vets and veterinary nurses to fulfil their potential and it's fitting that he's moving on to a role which benefits the lives of others. Meanwhile, there's a considerable amount of important work being done by the RCVS and I am confident that we have a strong team at Belgravia House to manage this until the new CEO is in post."
The RCVS says its Operational Board will be reflecting on Nick’s successes and the future needs of the College, before developing a specification for the new CEO and a recruitment process over the coming weeks.
Vet History is part of a five year project to improve access to and awareness of the wealth of material held by the College, which began with the appointment of a qualified archivist in October 2015 and the creation of the online database which includes descriptions of material catalogued to international archive standards. The catalogue will be fully searchable with biographical profiles for major persons featured in the collections.
The papers of the prolific veterinary author and army veterinarian Major General Sir Frederick Smith (1857-1929) are amongst the first collections to be fully catalogued and described online. The material covers the length of Smith’s career from case notes recording treatment of army horses in India in the 1880s to correspondence from the last 20 years of his life, in which he wrote a four volume history of veterinary literature. Smith was involved in the Army Veterinary Service during the Second Anglo-Boer War and the First World War, and his honest and candid accounts of the loss of horses by the Army illustrate fascinating aspects of veterinary, social and military history.
Chris Gush, Executive Director, RCVS Knowledge said: "The launch of the Archives catalogue covers a critical and fascinating time in the nation’s history, both for the advances in veterinary science and its role in marinating a functioning British military presence in the 19th century. Through this unparalleled collection, RCVS Knowledge can be an invaluable source of information for academic research and the general public."
The RCVS Vet History project is ongoing, and further collections will be catalogued periodically over the next four years. Visitors are encouraged to check the catalogue regularly, and follow RCVS Knowledge’s Twitter feed for news and updates.
To see behind the scenes of the Project, and find out more about highlighted items, follow the Historical Collections blog here.
The RCVS Vet History Project is supported by The ALBORADA Trust.
The RCVS is to launch a consultation in the New Year on proposals to allow all RCVS-registered veterinary surgeons to use the courtesy title 'Dr'/'Doctor', and is seeking the views of all members of the veterinary and veterinary nursing professions, and the general public.
The proposals were raised by RCVS President Stuart Reid at RCVS Day in July 2014, with the aims of aligning the UK with international practice, providing greater clarity for the profession and offering reassurance to clients and the animal-owning public that all veterinary surgeons registered with the RCVS, regardless of where they qualified, have veterinary degrees of an appropriate standard.
In his speech in July, Stuart highlighted that most international veterinary surgeons use the title and that, in Australia and New Zealand, this is frequently tied to registration and professional standing, rather than necessarily academic attainment. He went on to outline that, of the three main clinical degrees in the UK, ie medicine, dentistry and veterinary medicine, only veterinary surgeons do not use the courtesy title 'Doctor'.
Stuart added: "given the fact that all continental EU graduates carry the title 'Doctor', there is now a greater chance of confusion for the lay public than previously.
"This is now an opportunity to provide, for those UK veterinary surgeons who wish it, the legitimate use of a title that offers a level of parity with fellow medical professionals."
The key objective of the consultation is to gauge whether the public and the profession are in favour of the proposal, not in favour of it, or don't mind either way. If agreed, the use of the title would be optional, although the College would regulate its use through the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct.
Background information and draft guidance on using the title is available to read on the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/doctortitle, from where respondents can follow a link to answer the consultation questions.
The consultation will open officially on Tuesday, 6 January for six weeks (deadline for responses is 5pm on Monday, 16 February) although it is already available to view via the RCVS website, to allow more time for responses over the Christmas and New Year break.
Do you think vets should be called 'Dr'? Discuss here.
It’s very significant because it’s the first time the College has produced material for practices that highlights the responsibilities of pet owners, as well as those of veterinary surgeons and nurses.
As such, it should be a really useful tool to support the advice given by veterinary surgeons and nurses in practice.
In other words, don’t just stick it on the wall in some hidden part of the waiting room. Display it prominently by the reception desk, and point to it when explaining why owners need to make their own arrangements to bring the animal into the practice in emergency, for example. Or why you can’t prescribe drugs when you haven’t seen the animal for 8 years.
The idea for the poster was first mooted by Jonathan Wray MRCVS in the forum on VetSurgeon.org, after he’d seen a similar thing produced by the French regulator for veterinary practices in France.
VetSurgeon.org decided to produce an English version with input from vets as to what they would like a UK version of the poster to say.
On reflection, however, it was always something which would carry so much more clout if it came from the regulator, so we turned the idea over to the RCVS.
To its great credit, the College ran with the idea and had the poster designed and put through its Standards Committee. The result has now been posted to all practices in the UK, with a pdf version available to download from www.rcvs.org.uk/poster.
The RCVS is now inviting feedback about the poster at communications@rcvs.org.uk.
If you like the poster, I really do urge you drop the College a quick line at that email address and say so. Better still - and I will probably be put on the naughty step for saying this - cc L.Lockett@rcvs.org.uk and i.holloway@rcvs.org.uk. It was they who took the idea forward and made it happen. I think they deserve a round of applause.
The survey was sent to all UK veterinary practices on the 25th November with a deadline to respond by the 1st December and received 186 responses, a response rate of 6%.
The survey found that during this period:
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, said: “Thank you once again to all the practice staff who took the time to complete this survey, it really is very useful for us to have a clear picture of how coronavirus and its restrictions are affecting day-to-day activities, as it has an impact both on our decision-making and policies, and what we can tell others about the impact on the professions, such as the UK and national governments.
"The overall picture from this survey is that, while for most it is not business as usual, veterinary practices and members of the professions are, to an extent, getting used to the disruption and have plans and policies in place to help mitigate the impact of the mosaic of different restrictions across the UK.
"While there is hope on the horizon with the start of the roll-out of coronavirus vaccines, we will continue to review and keep up-to-date our advice and guidance to ensure that you can practise to the best of your abilities, while keeping safe and within the rules.
“Of course, we also recognise the toll that the pandemic has taken on many people’s mental health and wellbeing, and this is reflected in some of the more concerning statistics around the impact that staff absences can have on the rest of the team.
"We also asked practices what might help them manage from a staff mental health and wellbeing point of view, and will take these suggestions into account when planning further support via our Mind Matters Initiative mental health project. In the meantime, we would like to remind those who are feeling stressed or are in distress that there are sources of help available during these difficult times – these can be found at www.vetmindmatters.org/help-links/help-during-covid-19/.”
The full report of the survey is available to view at www.rcvs.org.uk/publications
The College says it will be promoting its Find a Vet search tool and its new Practice Standards Scheme (PSS) at the event, which runs from Thursday 4 to Sunday 7 August. It will also be giving career advice for prospective veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.
The College’s Find a Vet search tool was relaunched earlier this year, allowing users to search for a veterinary surgeon, veterinary nurse or veterinary practice all in one place. The tool also includes new features such as displaying a practice’s visiting information (including opening hours and car parking); enabling users to ‘get directions’ via Google Maps; advertising a practice’s PSS accreditations and awards; and returning individual profile pages for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.
To promote the free search tool the College will be encouraging visitors to take part in its Find a Vet dice game, as well as hosting a random draw photo competition which will encourage members of the public to find and photograph one of our veterinary surgeons or veterinary nurses who will be lost in the grounds of Blenheim Palace.
Another of the College’s promotional focuses is the new PSS. The new PSS is designed to provide a greater focus on how practices use their resources to create a positive outcome for patients and clients, and allows for practices to distinguish the areas in which they excel through its awards system. The College says it is using BBC Countryfile Live to raise the profile of PSS and make animal owners more aware of the various available accreditation levels.
Ahead of the event, the RCVS is running social media competitions to give away 15 free pairs of tickets: on Facebook (/TheRCVS); Twitter (@RCVS_UK); and its new Instagram account (@thercvs). The competitions ends Friday 29 July, with winners being announced that day at 5pm. Tickets will allow entry on Thursday 4, Friday 5, and Sunday 7 August.
The RCVS has launched a new online form to allow veterinary surgeons to change their Register title to 'Dr'.
You can make the change by logging into the 'My Account' area of the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/login) where you can access the form. Usernames and passwords for the My Account area were sent to all veterinary surgeons in February as part of the annual renewal process.
The College says an email confirmation is sent once the form is completed and changes should take effect immediately in the My Account area. However, it may take up to 24 hours before the title appears on an individual's Register entry.
The use of 'Doctor' as a courtesy title was approved by RCVS Council at its March meeting, following a public consultation which garnered more than 11,000 responses.
Use of the title is optional and veterinary surgeons who choose to use 'Doctor' or 'Dr' should use it in conjunction with their name and either the descriptor 'veterinary surgeon' or the postnominal letters 'MRCVS'. This ensures that they do not mislead the public by suggesting or implying that they hold a human medical qualification or a PhD.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has agreed to adjourn multiple charges against a County Durham-based veterinary surgeon following her undertakings to request removal from the RCVS Register and never to apply to be restored to it.
At the hearing held yesterday, Silke Birgitt Lindridge was charged with disgraceful conduct in a professional respect in regard to four separate allegations, spanning the period of June 2011 to September 2012 whilst in practice at the Safe Hands Veterinary Group. Two of the allegations related to failures to euthanase or arrange the euthanasia of a cat and a dog and being dishonest and/or misleading about these failures, with their respective owners. The other two allegations related to administering a vaccine (Fevaxyn) which was more than two years past its expiry date to a cat, and failure to provide or take adequate steps to provide promptly all the relevant clinical information to a veterinary practice taking over the responsibility for the treatment of a Labrador Cross.
However, before the Disciplinary Committee had heard evidence in respect of these charges, Mrs Lindridge, who did not attend the hearing, had lodged her application for adjournment on the basis that she would request that the Registrar remove her name from the Register with immediate effect and undertake never to apply to be restored to it. The Disciplinary Committee made no enquiry into the facts of the four charges and emphasised that they had neither been proved against, nor admitted by, the respondent.
Removal from the RCVS Register removes a veterinary surgeon's right to practise in the UK. The respondent informed the RCVS that she had no wish to return to the practice of veterinary surgery in this country. Should she subsequently apply to be restored to the Register, the Disciplinary Committee would resume its consideration of the charges, along with the breach of her undertaking.
The Disciplinary Committee was advised that the views of the animal owners involved had been sought and that all had agreed with the proposed course of action.
Speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, its Chairman, Professor Peter Lees, said: "Having considered the information before it, the Committee has decided it would not be in the public interest to proceed to a full hearing. It is satisfied that the undertakings offered by the respondent [Mrs Lindridge] protect the welfare of animals and uphold the reputation of the profession."
Professor Lees added: "The undertakings offered by the respondent to request the Registrar to remove her name from the Register with immediate effect and never to make an application for restoration to the Register, go beyond any sanction that this Committee could impose at the conclusion of a contested hearing. It does not consider that it would be proportionate for either party to incur the substantial costs of a contested hearing."
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed charges of serious professional misconduct against a veterinary surgeon and former employee of Medivet (Watford).
Tomasz Nazimek, who qualified in Poland in 2001 before starting work in England in 2005, was alleged to have charged for the use of a blood pressure monitor during an exploratory laparotomy on a cat called Mitzi, whilst working at the Watford branch of Medivet in June 2009, when he knew, or ought to have known, it had not been used.
Despite his previous signed statements to the contrary, Mr Nazimek admitted at the outset of the hearing that no blood pressure monitor had in fact been used.
Accordingly, the Committee only had to establish whether Mr Nazimek himself had entered the fee for its use into Mitzi's records and, if so, whether this was done dishonestly.
The alleged incident came to light as a result of a covert investigation into Medivet conducted by the television production company Fulcrum TV in 2008/9, and subsequently commissioned by the BBC and broadcast in July 2010 as part of the Panorama programme 'It Shouldn't Happen at a Vets''.
Former dental nurse Alexandra Lee was employed by Fulcrum TV as an undercover reporter to work as a 'trainee veterinary nurse' at Medivet, in order to record audio and video footage of her experiences there.
The case against Mr Nazimek was based partly on a conversation overheard by Miss Lee following the operation on Mitzi, where she maintained that Guy Carter, a senior Medivet partner and veterinary surgeon, told Mr Nazimek (who was sitting at the practice computer typing up Mitzi's records) not to forget to include a fee for use of the blood pressure monitor.
However, Miss Lee's equipment had not recorded this exchange, due to a fault, and her video diary of that day's events was not put in evidence before the Committee. Miss Lee also accepted in evidence that she had not actually seen who entered the fee into the records, but had assumed it was Mr Nazimek.
Despite giving serious consideration to all of Miss Lee's evidence, the Committee found it of limited value.
The Committee considered the statements signed by Mr Nazimek, but prepared for him by the Medivet senior management in December 2009 and October 2010, which stated that he had used the monitor, consulted Mr Carter about charging for it and then added the fee himself.
The Committee also considered a third statement provided to the College (September 2011), in which Mr Nazimek recalled that Mr Carter had priced up the operation himself, but not asked for his input.
When questioned about the discrepancies in his statements, Mr Nazimek told the Committee that he had confused different operations and now knew his earlier statements to be wrong.
He indicated that he had been under pressure from his then employers to sign the statements, that his attempts to change them were ignored by Medivet's managing partners and that he was depressed and under stress at the time.
He was not told that the statements could be in relation to charges against him, or that he was entitled to legal advice when discussing them with his employers.
The Committee found Mr Nazimek's oral evidence to be persuasive, his manner open and his responses under cross-examination frank.
In the absence of satisfactory and reliable evidence to the contrary, and in view of supportive testimonials provided from his current employer and former colleagues as to his honesty and integrity, the Committee found Mr Nazimek's repeated assertion that he did not make a charge for the monitor "entirely plausible" and believed that he told the truth.
Nevertheless, the Committee emphasised that a charge for the monitor had been entered into the records when no such device had been used, which it regarded as unacceptable.
Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Chairman Professor Peter Lees said: "The Committee is not satisfied by the evidence so that it is sure that [Mr Nazimek] entered into the records for Mitzi a charge for the blood pressure monitor. [It] believes that [Mr Nazimek] told the truth when giving his evidence and the character references support his honesty.
"In these circumstances, it is not necessary to consider the charges further and the allegations against [Mr Nazimek] are dismissed."
Each candidate will produce a written reply to two questions of their choice, which will be included on their candidate profile webpage ahead of the start of the election.
The 14 candidates who are standing in this year’s election for the three available elected places on RCVS Council are:
The biographies and election statements for each candidate are available to read at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote24.
The three candidates with the most votes will join Council for their four-year terms at the College’s AGM in July.
The College says it will only accept one question per person and questions must be decent.
Offensive, defamatory and inaccurate questions will not be passed on to candidates.
You can email your question to: vetvote24@rcvs.org.uk
The RCVS is hosting a free webinar at which it will explain changes to the guidance on 24-hour emergency care at 8.30pm on Monday 28 July.
Veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and other practice staff are all welcome to attend.
The webinar - 24/7 Emergency Care - A New Emphasis - will be led by RCVS Registrar and Head of Legal Services Gordon Hockey and Clare Tapsfield-Wright, former RCVS Council member and Chair of the RCVS Standards Committee. They will be explaining changes to supporting guidance of the Code of Professional Conduct and their impact on the responsibilities of practices and practice staff, as well as the public.
The changes to the guidance resulted from an extensive evidence-gathering process with both the profession and animal owners in respect of their expectations on the provision of 24-hour emergency veterinary cover.
The new supporting guidance, which was developed by RCVS Standards Committee after a thorough review of the evidence and approved in principle by RCVS Council in June, now places a greater emphasis on owners' legal responsibilities for the welfare of their animals as well as an obligation on veterinary surgeons to provide more information to clients about their out-of-hours service.
Furthermore, the new guidance will assist and empower vets to decline to attend an animal away from the practice when unnecessary or unsafe. The new guidance will be published online shortly.
To register for the free webinar, hosted by the Webinar Vet, please visit www.thewebinarvet.com/rcvs. A recording of the webinar will be made available to listen to again.
Eight veterinary surgeons have put themselves forward to compete for the three available places. They are:
The RCVS has uploaded each of the candidates’ biographies and election statements on to its website, at: www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote20.
The elections will start from Monday 16th March when the ballot papers and candidates’ manifestos will be posted and emailed to all members of the profession who are eligible to vote.
All votes, whether postal or online, must then be cast by 5pm on Friday 24 April 2020.
As with previous years, the RCVS is also inviting members of the profession to get a better idea of why each candidate is standing by taking part in 'Quiz the candidates' and submitting a question which will then be put directly to the candidates.
Each candidate for both elections will be invited to choose two questions to answer from all those received, and produce a video recording of their answers.
Recordings will be published on the RCVS website and YouTube channel (www.youtube.com/rcvsvideos) on the week the election starts.
The College says only question per person is allowed, and any which it deems offensive, inappropriate, misleading, libellous or otherwise unlawful will not be distributed to the candidates.
Vets should email their question to vetvote20@rcvs.org.uk or send it to the College’s Twitter account @theRCVS using the hashtag #vetvote20 by midday on Friday 28 February 2020.
COMMENT
With the veterinary profession facing two of the biggest regulatory changes seen in most people's lifetimes, namely changes to the rules over remote prescribing without performing a physical examination and a possible change to the standard of proof used in disciplinaries, there has never been a more important time to make sure that practising veterinary surgeons are properly represented on Council. Nor has there been a time I can remember when a protest vote would represent such a shocking waste. Don't forget, you don't need to use all your votes. Use them wisely.
The deadline for candidate nominations for the RCVS and VN Council elections is fast approaching - so please hurry if you plan to stand.
There are six seats on the RCVS Council, and two on the VN Council, due to be filled in the 2010 election, but candidate nominations must be received by 31 January 2010.
Jane Hern, RCVS Registrar said: "Getting regulation right is something that all Members and Listed/Registered VNs have power to influence. We know from the reaction we get when we propose changes or ask for your comments that vets and VNs are not backwards about coming forwards - and, like us or loathe us, what the RCVS does impacts directly on the lives of veterinary surgeons and nurses, their clients and patients."
The elections will be held in March, and decided by all veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who use their vote. The results will be announced early in May, with those elected taking their seats at RCVS Day in July and serving four-year terms.
All prospective candidates need to provide the signatures and registered/listed addresses of two proposers, and should also submit a short biography, 'manifesto' and photograph for inclusion in the elections booklets. Nobody can nominate more than one candidate, and no current member of the RCVS Council or VN Council may nominate anyone.
Newly elected RCVS Council members should expect to sit on at least one committee which, together with Council attendances, means a time commitment of at least six to eight days a year. Those elected to the VN Council should expect to spend approximately six to eight days attending Council meetings, working parties and subcommittees. Both RCVS Council and VN Council members' expenditures on hotels and travel are reimbursed. Their employers can also claim a standard day-rate for loss of earnings.
Nomination forms and full details relating to RCVS Council nominations can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk or obtained by contacting the Executive Office (020 7222 0761 or executiveoffice@rcvs.org.uk). Nomination forms and details relating to the VN Council can be requested from Annette Amato (020 7202 0788 or a.amato@rcvs.org.uk). All nominations must be made in writing on the prescribed form and received by the Registrar on or before the closing date of 31 January 2010.
John Davies and Tom Lonsdale MsRCVS both objected to edits made by the College to their candidate statements.
Mr Davies explained in his statement how he'd been subject to "bewildering, unfounded and damaging allegations" from two veterinary nurses, one of which he says resulted in his dismissal from a practice at which he was a partner. He went on to explain how, in addition to taking the dismissal case to an employment tribunal and winning, he had also raised concerns with the College about the nurses who'd made the allegations against him. Mr Davies outlined the way he felt that the RCVS mismanaged his case and how that had driven him to stand for Council to try and address the grave concerns he now had about the governance of the profession. However, the Returning Officer redacted the details on the grounds that they were considered to be defamatory and/or factually misleading.
The main grounds for Mr Lonsdale’s challenge was that the election had been furthered by corrupt practices, namely undue influence (all in terms of the Misrepresentation of the People Act 1983). In addition, the Returning Officer edited Mr Lonsdale’s candidate statement before circulation to the electorate, refusing to include hypertext links and removing references that the Returning Officer believed to be defamatory. The Returning Officer also declined to publish his ‘Quiz the candidates’ video on the RCVS website and/or YouTube channel when requests to make minor amendments considered defamatory were refused.
Both challenges were lodged with the RCVS last July, after which the College set up a Challenge Committee in accordance with the election challenge procedure, approved by Privy Council. It comprised three members of Council nominated by RCVS President Stephen May.
Sitting with one of the RCVS Legal Assessors – Mr Richard Price OBE QC – the Challenge Committee was required to decide whether to declare the election void, based on whether the alleged irregularity in question rendered the election substantially not in accordance with the RCVS Council Election Scheme, or that the irregularity concerned significantly affected the result of the election (in which Mr Lonsdale and Mr Davies came 15th and 16th respectively out of 16 candidates).
Following written submissions from both the RCVS and Mr Davies, the Challenge Committee dismissed Mr Davies’s challenge, stating that there was no irregularity in the conduct of the election on the part of the Returning Officer, and that there was no valid basis for challenging the validity of the election.
The Challenge Committee (comprising the same members as for Mr Davies’s challenge) also dismissed Mr Lonsdale’s challenge, stating that it considered it to be 'totally devoid of merit'.
Prior to reaching this decisions, however, two preliminary challenges made by Mr Lonsdale were also considered and dismissed.
The first related to the members of the Challenge Committee, whom Mr Lonsdale argued should stand down on the basis of actual or apparent bias based on his allegations of connections with the pet food industry.
The Committee considered that a fair-minded and informed observer, having understood the facts, would conclude that the connection of committee members to the pet food industry were '….remote, indirect and, in the case of one panel member, virtually non-existent'.
Each committee member was satisfied that there was '…no real possibility of their judgement being distorted or influenced by any interest in, or links with, the pet food industry.'
The second challenge was to The Legal Assessor, who had been appointed to advise the Committee. Mr Lonsdale had alleged that Mr Price had displayed bias in the way that he had given advice to the Committee in relation to the challenge to the Committee membership. This was also dismissed.
Mr Wood was convicted of three offences which involved the download of 38 videos and 13 indecent images of children, at Portsmouth Magistrates’ Court in December 2017.
In January 2018, he was sentenced to a three-year Community Sentence for each offence, to run concurrently, and was made subject to a five-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order.
He was also fined £1,000 and ordered to pay costs of £340 and a victim surcharge of £85.
Mr Wood was also placed on the barring list by the Disclosure and Barring Service and required to register with the police pursuant to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for a period of five years.
Mr Wood appeared before the Disciplinary Committee, admitted his conviction and accepted that it rendered him unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
In determining the sanction, the Committee says it took into account a number of mitigating factors: his conviction involved no actual harm or risk of harm to an animal; there was no financial gain; he had engaged in open and frank admissions at an early stage; he was experiencing mental ill-health at the time of the offence; he had taken subsequent steps to avoid a repetition of such behaviour; there had been a significant lapse of time since the incident; and he showed insight into the harm caused by his offence.
The Committee also considered that the purpose of a sanction is not to punish, but to protect the welfare of animals, as well as maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct. On consideration of the appropriate sanction, the Committee decided that postponement of judgement was not appropriate, and that taking no action was not an option.
The Committee then considered whether a reprimand or warning was appropriate, but they considered that would not match the gravity of the offence – a period of suspension would also mean Mr Wood would automatically return to the Register after the period of time without the College being able to review his fitness to practise, rendering it an inappropriate sanction. The Committee therefore determined that the removal of Mr Wood from the RCVS Register was the only way to protect the wider public interest and maintain confidence in the profession.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee has not taken this decision lightly, and, lest it be misinterpreted, it has not taken it in order to satisfy any notional public demand for blame and punishment.
"It has taken the decision because in its perception, the reputation of the profession had to be at the forefront of its thinking and ultimately it was more important than the interests of the Respondent.
"The decision is not simply based on the fact that these offences were of a sexual nature but because they were repeated frequently over a significant period of time, and at the time, the Respondent knew on his own admission that what he was doing was wrong.
"Accordingly, the Committee had decided that removal from the Register is appropriate and proportionate in this case. The Committee will direct the Registrar to remove the Respondent’s name from the Register forthwith."
Mr Wood has 28 days to appeal the Committee’s decision after which, if no appeal is received, the Committee’s judgment takes effect.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has announced that Nick Stace has been appointed its Chief Executive and Secretary, and will take up his post on 3 September 2012.
Mr Stace leaves CHOICE, Australia's equivalent of consumer group Which?, after three and a half years as Chief Executive Officer. At CHOICE, Nick led the modernisation of the organisation, this year taking it to the number one spot as the most trusted media entity in Australia. A long-standing consumer champion, Nick also held the post of Deputy CEO at Which?, he was a director at Consumers' International and former Prime Minister Gordon Brown's Director of Strategic Communications.
RCVS President Jerry Davies said: "I am delighted that Nick Stace will be joining the College. With his impressive track-record, I believe that we have a Chief Executive who will lead the College into a new phase of modernisation and development. I am grateful to the Interview Panel, led by Council member Dr Barry Johnson, for all their hard work in securing this excellent appointment."
Nick Stace said: "It is an enormous privilege to be leading an organisation that seeks to ensure Britain has the best vets in the world. The College has a special place in the lives of every vet in the country, it also has a responsibility to animals and consumers to set high standards and ensure they are met. I look forward to helping the College continue to improve veterinary standards across the country and to lead the College through its next stage of development."
The role of Chief Executive and Secretary is a new one - previously the Registrar led the executive of the College. One of Nick Stace's first tasks will be to assist in recruitment of the Head of Legal Services/Registrar, a new role.