The RCVS is holding a session at the London Vet Show on Saturday 23rd October from 8:30am-9:30am to provide guidance and advice concerning the work your nursing team does in practice.

As the RCVS says, the recent Panorama programme "It shouldn't happen at a vets'" was a stark reminder of the importance of ensuring that all practice staff are working within the appropriate legal framework.

The session will answer such questions as:

• Are your veterinary nursing staff working legally?
• Do their job titles mislead the public?
• Is your veterinary team delegating appropriately?
• Do you understand Schedule 3?
• Are your VN 'students' really students?

Because of the early start, the RCVS is providing breakfast from 8:15am, though I wouldn't get your hopes up for eggs benedict and freshly smoked Loch Fyne kippers.

The RCVS says the session will be relevant for all members of the practice team, but that if you can't make the session, they will be on hand to discuss VN legislation on stand M26. 

The Practice Standards Group, which comprises representatives from all of the key veterinary and veterinary nursing organisations, has updated the standards of the Practice Standards Scheme and a draft of the new Manual is now available for comment.

The Scheme is a voluntary accreditation programme that aims to promote and maintain high standards of facilities and care within UK veterinary practices. When it was launched in 2005, a commitment was made that the standards would not change for five years, unless new legislation (such as the Veterinary Medicines Regulations) required it. Following a detailed review of the standards, to ensure they continue to be relevant to current veterinary practice, proposals have been made by the Group for new standards to be implemented during 2010. 

Jill Nute, Chairman of the Practice Standards Group said: "It is unlikely that any already-accredited practices will be required to invest in additional facilities or equipment to meet the new standards.

"Instead, greater emphasis has been placed on clinical outcomes and training. For example, performance review has been introduced for all clinical staff, including the Professional Development Phase for new graduates. We are keen to hear feedback on the proposed new standards."

One recommendation is that the 'tiers' should be dropped. The categories will retain their descriptive names, for example, Small Animal General Practice or Equine Veterinary Hospital. Feedback suggests that clients, and the profession, found the tiers to be misleading.

The layout of the Manual has been revamped, to include guidance that was previously available online. Guidance for each relevant standard can now be seen at a glance. There is also an icon to indicate if documentary evidence will be required by the inspector. In addition, the new format clarifies the derivation of each standard, so that legislative requirements are distinguished from those required under the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct and those indicated by better practice.

Membership of the Scheme continues to grow, with 126 applications to join the Scheme in the first six months of this year, representing 264 premises, compared with 61 applications in the whole of last year. There are currently 2,351 practice premises under the ambit of the Scheme - approximately 50%.

The draft new Manual is online at www.rcvs.org.uk/consultations.

Hard copies are available from Eleanor Ferguson, Practice Standards Scheme Manager: e.ferguson@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0720.

The deadline for comments is 31 August 2009. Responses will be considered by the Practice Standards Group at its September meeting and thereafter by Council in November.

The RCVS Council has decided, by majority vote, to consult with the professions on possible changes to the disciplinary system.

At the meeting, which took place last Thursday, Council members were asked to decide how to proceed with three specific proposals on reforming the disciplinary system:

1. A change to the standard of proof used in deciding whether or not the facts of a case are proven from the current criminal standard (‘beyond all reasonable doubt’), to the civil standard (‘on the balance of probabilities’). Under the proposals, the decision as to whether the proven facts amount to professional misconduct would remain as currently.
2. The introduction of a ‘Charter Case Protocol’ in which cases that meet the threshold for a full Disciplinary Committee hearing, but which might be likely to attract a low sanction, can be concluded without a public hearing. Suitable cases may include those where factors such as insight or remediation have been shown. This, says the College, means that instead of a disciplinary hearing, certain cases might be concluded in a more proportionate manner, for example via a system of publicly-issued warnings and/or advice.
3. To end the current system of initial review of complaints via a Case Examiners Group with the more complex of these cases then reviewed subsequently by the Preliminary Investigation Committee. Instead a single stage review process with complaints considered by a number of ‘mini-Preliminary Investigation Committees’ with three members would be used. This, says the College, would simplify the system and potentially speed up the concerns investigation and disciplinary processes, thus reducing the stress of the process on all parties. Full Preliminary Investigation Committee meetings (involving five Committee members) would still take place to consider the most complex cases.

Acknowledging some of the concerns that have been raised about changing the standard of proof, RCVS Registrar Eleanor Ferguson said: “The RCVS is now one of just a few regulators that still uses the criminal standard of proof in determining the facts of a case. We have sought these changes as part of our ongoing aim to develop a compassionate and forward-looking disciplinary system with the protection of the public absolutely at its heart, whilst also acknowledging the huge toll the process takes on the mental health of veterinary professionals.

"Research that we carried out into the impact of changing the standard of proof indicated that it would not lead to a major increase in cases being referred from the Preliminary Investigation Committee to the Disciplinary Committee. Importantly the number is likely to be very low because the standard of proof only applies to proving the facts of a case; the judgement as to whether proven facts amount to serious professional misconduct will follow the same process as at present.

"We estimated that during 2019, there could have been just two more cases brought to DC under a altered standard of proof, with an additional three cases that were borderline but probably wouldn’t have proceeded any further. Conversely, we also estimated that three cases that did go to DC during 2019 would probably not have done, had the ‘Charter Case Committee’ option been available.

"Ultimately, the aim of the RCVS in regulating the veterinary professions is to protect the public and animal welfare as well as upholding the reputation of the professions. We believe these changes will better achieve that aim."

The consultation on whether to change the standard of proof as well as to introduce the Charter Case Protocol and ‘mini-PICs’ is now planned for later this year.

Further information about the proposals, including some of the arguments for and against changing the standard of proof, can be found in the papers for RCVS Council at: www.rcvs.org.uk/who-we-are/rcvs-council/council-meetings/4-june-2020/ (pages 70-97).

RCVS Knowledge has announced the official launch of Veterinary Evidence – a new resource designed to unite practitioners interested in promoting and using the principles of evidence-based veterinary medicine (EBVM) within practice.

Veterinary Evidence – which is supported by the RCVS – represents RCVS Knowledge’s wider mission statement of providing the veterinary community with practice relevant, evidence-based information resources. Papers and publications are now available for use, completely open-access.

Veterinary Evidence aims to become the go-to portal for evidence-based veterinary information, promoting and publishing peer-reviewed papers alongside discussion of EBVM through opinion, clinical and methodological articles.

The site will host a wide range of material – from randomised controlled trials to case studies, Knowledge Summaries and interviews. The content is designed to educate readers in research techniques, responding to the desire amongst many veterinary professionals to become involved in effective practice-based research – including critical appraisal and clinical audit. 

Jacqui Molyneux, Chair of the RCVS Knowledge Board of Trustees said: "As a practising veterinary surgeon I, along with many others, recognise the emerging importance of evidence-based veterinary medicine and I believe it will become more and more important as time goes on. We all wish to do the best for our patients but how do we find out what the current ‘best’ is? That’s where this portal will become so useful; collecting and publishing articles that directly help practising vets and nurses to answer that question."   

Bradley Viner, the President of the RCVS and a Trustee of RCVS Knowledge, said: "The College was very happy to support our charity partners at RCVS Knowledge in launching this excellent new resource which will be relevant to all veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses in clinical practice. Furthermore, clinical governance is now firmly established as an important principle in the Code of Professional Conducts for both professions and so, by encouraging practitioners to undergo a continuing process of reflection, analysis and improvement, Veterinary Evidence will also be helping them fulfil their professional responsibilities." 

Access the full site at: www.veterinaryevidence.org

The RCVS Operational Board has announced that it will ask Council to review its decision to remove postgraduate postnominals from the Register, following the largely negative response from the profession to the idea, including a petition from Derbyshire surgeon, Victoria Lilley.

The original decision was made by Council in June 2012 as part of a package of measures aimed at developing clarity around postgraduate skills and knowledge.

The College says that the removal of postgraduate postnominals from the Register was intended to help dispel confusion amongst the public and some members of the profession about the level of various qualifications, by introducing the Advanced Practitioner status alongside the existing Specialist list.

Chairman of the Operational Board, CEO Nick Stace, said: "Over the last few days we have listened to the disquiet amongst the profession - which has included direct contact with staff and Operational Board members, a petition and discussion on fora and social media - and feel that we should address some misunderstandings but also give Council the opportunity to review the decision at its 5 June meeting.

"Many good points have been made by members of the profession and I am pleased that the Operational Board has agreed to reflect on them and consider whether there is a better way to achieve the clarity we were seeking for the public and the profession.

"The introduction of Advanced Practitioner status is a positive move for both the profession and the public, and underlines the College's commitment to lifelong learning.

"It is important to have the profession's support for the direction we are taking in advancing standards across the sector."

The College has also provided some Q&A's concerning the original decision made by Council in 2012, as follows.

1. When did this process start?
   A Specialisation Working Party was set up in spring 2010 under the chairmanship of Professor Sir Kenneth Calman to review routes to specialisation, and clarity around postgraduate qualifications. It was, in part, in response to a report produced by Professor Philip Lowe, on behalf of Defra, around veterinary expertise in food animal production, although the Working Party's remit went wider.
2. Was the profession consulted?
   The recommendations of the Working Party were sent out to consultation amongst the profession and the public in November 2011. The story featured on the front page of the November 2011 issue of RCVS News, which was sent to every member of the College, and received media coverage. We received 290 responses: 265 from individuals and 25 from organisations or groups of individuals.
3. To what has Council agreed?
   Council unanimously agreed recommendations from the Specialisation Working Party in June 2012. As well as recommending increasing scope of the Specialist list, changing the wording in the Code of Professional Conduct, and setting up the Advanced Practitioner status, it was agreed that: "The RCVS should simplify significantly the listing of postnominal letters for qualifications against Members' names in the published Register and on the RCVS website (Find a Vet). Official lists should show only the registerable degree (eg BVMS, or DVM, or BVetMed etc), followed by either MRCVS or FRCVS, and indicating whether the individual is on the list of specialists or the list of advanced practitioners. Thus: i. John Brown BVSc MRCVS ii. Jane Smith BVM&S MRCVS Advanced Practitioner in Small Animal Surgery iii. Peter Jones, MVB, FRCVS, RCVS Specialist in Anaesthesia" This change would only have taken effect once the Advanced Practitioner list was in place and had bedded in.
4. Why was this proposal made?
   There were three key reasons for the decision in 2012: a) A qualification marks knowledge acquired at a specific point in time and is not necessarily an indicator of current knowledge and skills. Meanwhile, the status of Advanced Practitioner or Specialist will be revalidated every five years and require the individual actively to keep their knowledge and skills up to date. b) Market research has indicated that members of the public were unsure about the various postnominals and what they stood for. Veterinary surgeons are also confused about the level of different qualifications. c) It is increasingly difficult to adjudicate on which postnominals should be included in the Register, and new requests are made on a regular basis, including qualifications that are not straightforward to assess in terms of their quality or relevance. While it may seem easy to say that just RCVS postgraduate qualifications should be included, since we began phasing out the RCVS Diplomas and encouraging veterinary surgeons to take European ones, this has been less clear-cut.
5. Is the RCVS removing our qualifications?
   No. There has never been an intention to remove anyone's qualifications.
   The original decision in 2012 was not to print them in the Register or include on the RCVS website. Individuals would have been free to use them as they wished, for example, in practice marketing, on stationery etc.
6. How are veterinary nurses affected?
   There is no change to the position for veterinary nurses.
7. Is the RCVS devaluing non-modular certificates?
   Both modular (CertAVP) and non-modular certificates are valid for those wishing to apply to join the Advanced Practitioner list. Those with the non-modular certificates are asked to complete either the RCVS 'A' module in the CertAVP or other equivalent modules or 100 hours of CPD that covers the same ground, over their first five-year accreditation period.
8. Is Advanced Practitioner status just a money-making exercise for the RCVS?
   The Advanced Practitioners status is being introduced to give a clear signal to the profession and the public that a practitioner has developed their skills and knowledge in a specific area, and is committed to maintaining them. An administration fee is paid to the College to join and remain on the list, in the same way that it is for Specialists. It is not a money-making scheme and the fees are set to cover costs.
9. What's happening now?
   The RCVS Operational Board met on 24 April and considered the decision that had been made by Council in June 2012 and the subsequent unhappiness amongst the profession that had been catalysed by recently-published information about the Advanced Practitioner status. The Board felt that although the rationale behind the original 2012 decision was sound, the issues that the change aimed to address could now be tackled in other ways. It has therefore requested that Council review its decision at its 5 June meeting. A paper will be developed which outlines possible routes forward, which will be available on the RCVS website in due course.

The Disciplinary Committee (DC) of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has suspended a veterinary surgeon for a period of six months for issuing two false horse passports, having found him to have been “consciously dishonest”.

At a hearing which concluded on 15 July, Andrew Dominic Illing, Director of the Chapelfield Veterinary Partnership, Norwich, admitted charges of backdating the passports of two different horses on 1 May 2008, to indicate that they had been vaccinated on 24 April 2008 against equine influenza and equine influenza and tetanus, when he knew that the vaccinations had not been carried out on that date.

The Committee heard that, whilst on a routine visit to a local livery yard on 30 April 2008, a junior veterinary surgeon at the practice, Ms Charlotte Alice Mayers, had been pressured to backdate the equine passports of two horses, owned by Mrs Scriven and Mrs Kippen respectively, because their booster vaccinations had been carried out beyond the 12-month window prescribed by the Horse Racing Authority. Ms Mayers had declined to do so and had brought the passports back to the practice to seek the advice of its Director, Mr Illing.

Ms Mayers explained to Mr Illing, both in a note and in discussion with him, that the boosters had been administered outwith the prescribed period and that she had told the owners that she was not willing to backdate the passports, one of which she had already signed. The DC heard that Mr Illing had told Ms Mayers “not to worry about it” and that he would deal with the situation. It did not surface until the livery yard manager later made a complaint, that Mr Illing had in fact signed the second passport and backdated both to 24 April.

In mitigation, Mr Illing said that he had been under considerable stress at the time, as he had been dealing with a protracted and difficult disciplinary meeting concerning a senior veterinary colleague. As a consequence of this, the Committee heard from Mr Illing’s practice partner that Mr Illing was required to take on more work than he was already performing, which was already 10-15% more than the other three vets in the practice. In addition, Mr Illing had been in a degree of pain at the time, following a knee injury. The Committee also heard evidence from a veterinary surgeon who testified to Mr Illing’s good character; and received many written testimonials.

In reaching its decision, the Committee held the view that: “the public must be able to trust certificates which are signed by members of this profession. If the public cannot trust the authenticity of such certificates, the Committee considers that public confidence in the profession would be undermined, and undermined in a very significant way.” It also cited the obligations of the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct in terms of the integrity of veterinary certification, and the ‘12 Principles of Certification’, as agreed by the RCVS, the British Veterinary Association and the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

The Committee considered many factors when making its final decision. It did not accept that stress overbore Mr Illing’s normal way of dealing with certification, particularly where he had had a period of overnight reflection before taking the action that he did. However, it felt that the most troubling feature in his decision to backdate the certificates was that, in advising Ms Mayers on a difficult ethical issue, Mr Illing had “set a disgraceful example and wholly failed to provide her with the support to which she was entitled”. Furthermore, in backdating a certificate that Ms Mayers had already signed, he was putting her integrity at risk.

Alison Bruce, chairing the Committee, commented: “It is only by upholding the importance of each and every certificate issued by a member of the veterinary profession that public confidence in such certificates can be maintained.” She went on to say: “Without significant mitigating circumstances, false certification will result in removal from the Register. In Mr Illing’s case, having regard to all the evidence, both the oral and written testimonials, and taking into account all the aggravating and mitigating circumstances detailed above, the Committee has decided to suspend Mr Illing’s name from the Register for a period of six months.”

The RCVS is reminding practices about how best to store and secure controlled drugs after receiving reports from the police of eight practice burglaries in one week.

All Schedule 2 controlled drugs (with the exception of quinalbarbitone) and certain Schedule 3 controlled drugs are legally required to be stored in a locked container which is compliant with the Misuse of Drugs (Safe Custody) Regulations 1973; however, the College considers it advisable for all Schedule 3 controlled drugs to be stored in the controlled drug cabinet.

Controlled drug cabinets must only be accessed by a veterinary surgeon, or another nominated responsible person at the practice. In the case of a nominated person who is not a veterinary surgeon removing controlled drugs from the cabinet, the legal and professional responsibility remains with the veterinary surgeon whose direction they are under.

The College’s full guidance, including advice on use, location, and design and construction of cabinets, can be found in the Controlled Drugs Guidance and the Practice Standards Scheme Manual. Many police forces in the UK also have Controlled Drugs Liaison Officers who offer advice on various matters, including safe storage.

To download the Controlled Drugs Guidance, which includes further guidance on areas such as storage and destruction of controlled drugs, please visit the College’s website: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/publications/controlled-drugs-guidance/

To access the PSS Manual, visit the College’s website: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/practice-standards-scheme/

 Contact details for Controlled Drugs Liaison Officers by area can be obtained from the Association of Police Controlled Drugs Liaison Officers: http://www.apcdlo.org.uk/contact.html.

Dorset-based veterinary surgeon Kerstin Vockert has been struck off the Register after admitting animal welfare offences.

During her two-day hearing, the RCVS Disciplinary Committee heard that Ms Vockert had been convicted under Animal Welfare Act 2006 at Bournemouth Magistrates Court in April for, by her own admission, failing to protect two dogs she owned from pain, suffering, injury and disease, by not adequately grooming them.

The prosecution had been brought by the RSPCA after one of her dogs, a Shih Tzu named Happy, was taken into care by the local Council in September 2014 as a stray.

The dog was examined by Chris Devlin MRCVS who reported at the time that the dog’s coat was in an "appalling state, with multiple mats of hair all over his body" and with "evidence of faecal and urinary soiling on the fur around the rear end", which constituted clear signs of neglect. The dog was anaesthetised and treated by Mr Devlin for an eye condition and was also given a full body shave. The dog made a full recovery after these operations. 

Council employees discovered that Happy belonged to Ms Vockert and referred the matter to the RSPCA who started an investigation into his condition. When two RSPCA inspectors visited Ms Vockert’s home in September 2014 they observed a Cocker Spaniel named Millie which had severely matted fur. There were no concerns about any of the other dogs owned by Ms Vockert.

The two inspectors visited Ms Vockert’s home the next day by appointment and were told by Ms Vockert that Millie had been euthanased. Millie’s body was subsequently taken to Professor Kenneth Smith MRCVS and Claire Muir MRCVS for a post-mortem examination. In their report following the post-mortem, they observed Millie’s hair coat to be "extensively matted and given the growth of hair over the collar and claws, it is likely that the hair has not been clipped for an extremely long period... and is likely to have restricted the dog’s ability to walk. In addition, a large amount of faecal material has become matted within the hair coat and this finding strongly suggests that this dog was neglected."

As a result of her prosecution by the RSCPA, Ms Vockert was fined £620, ordered to pay costs of £300, a victim surcharge of £62 and a deprivation of animal ownership order was made under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

The Disciplinary Committee considered that the failure to groom extended over a period of months and that any conviction on the part of a veterinary surgeon relating to animal welfare was an extremely serious matter.

Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The College submitted that the conviction of a veterinary surgeon for an animal welfare offence, of necessity has the potential to undermine both the reputation of the profession and public confidence in the profession.

"In such circumstances, the respondent’s conviction fell far below the standard to be expected of a veterinary surgeon and therefore renders her unfit to practise veterinary surgery."

In considering Ms Vockert’s sanction, the Committee took into mitigation her long and otherwise unblemished career both in the UK and Germany, her guilty plea to the RSPCA conviction and the fact she made no attempt to challenge the College’s submissions in relation to her fitness to practise.

However, it also took into account a number of aggravating features, particularly the fact there was "actual neglect of the welfare of two animals, over a protracted period of time, which resulted in pain, suffering and discomfort. This aspect of the case is made more serious because the two animals in question belonged to the respondent, who is a practising veterinary surgeon with access to the drugs and equipment necessary to groom the dogs."

Ultimately, the Committee decided that the only appropriate sanction was to direct the Acting Registrar to remove Ms Vockert’s name from the Register.

Ian Green, summing up, said: "The Committee considers that the respondent’s conduct which led to the conviction, involved a departure from the most basic and pivotal principle of the Code [of Professional Conduct], which states that the first consideration when attending to animals is health and welfare.

"Accordingly, the Committee had decided that removal from the Register is appropriate and proportionate in this case."

The RCVS has published its Strategic Plan for 2017 to 2019, a major component of which is to identify the extent to which a 'blame' culture exists in the veterinary profession, the role that the College may play in it, the impact that that it may have on the welfare of veterinary surgeons, nurses, owners and their animals, and how the profession can move towards a culture that has a greater focus on learning and personal development.

The Strategic Plan was developed throughout the course of 2016 with input from a number of stakeholders including RCVS Council and Veterinary Nurses Council, key committees and College staff. Most importantly, the evidence for change came from the wide and deep consultations that took place within Vet Futures, the joint RCVS and British Veterinary Association project that aims to help the veterinary profession prepare for and shape its future.

The other four ambitions described in the plan are:

• Leadership and innovation: to become a Royal College with leadership and innovation at its heart, and support this creatively and with determination.
• Continuing to be a First-rate Regulator: continuing to build on the foundations that have already been laid, we will work to ensure that the legislation and regulations that support us are not only fit for purpose today, but enable us to make the UK veterinary professions, and those allied professionals who work alongside them, the best that they can be into the future
• Global reach: in part a response to Brexit and the need to be more externally-facing but with an emphasis to improve animal health and welfare on an international basis by raising veterinary standards overseas, contributing to the One Health agenda and ensuring that our regulation keeps pace in a global market.
• Our service agenda: to continue to build on our service agenda to ensure that people not only find interactions with us to be efficient and fair, but seek out and take up opportunities to engage further.

Nick Stace, RCVS CEO, said: "The hallmark of our 2014 to 2016 Strategic Plan was getting the basics right by clarifying our identity, improving our core functions, setting out our service agenda and strengthening our foundations. The plan gave us a firm foundation to build upon and improved levels of confidence in the College from stakeholders which has allowed us to be more ambitious and outward-looking with this new plan.

"Within the new plan there are challenging ambitions and stretching objectives that address some of the big issues affecting the veterinary team, whether that’s playing a more global role post-Brexit, the importance of embracing new technology, or the pressing need to consider culture change within the profession to ensure it continues to grow and learn.

"I would ask each member of the profession to take a look at the Strategic Plan and I am very happy to receive comments and feedback on the plan by email at nick@rcvs.org.uk."

To download the Strategic Plan, visit www.rcvs.org.uk/publications

A quick survey of VetSurgeon members¹ has found that of those that didn't vote in the 2011 council elections, 37.9% 'did not believe that voting in the RCVS elections will have any impact on my working life'

However, as Wynne Richards pointed out, decisions made by the RCVS, or which have involved the RCVS have had a seismic impact on the profession over the years, things like:

• Corporate practice
• Lay people being allowed to own practices
• Increased responsibility for Veterinary Nurses (and, indeed, the ability to call them 'Nurses')
• Introduction of Certificates
• Introduction of Diplomas
• Practices being allowed to advertise

... and so on, and so on.

So perhaps the issue is not whether or not the College is relevant to the working lives of its members. Clearly it is. More to the point, the College and its Councillors need to find ways to engage more with the profession and better demonstrate how the decisions it takes on the issues of the day will impact on its members.

This message is further hammered home by the 26% of voters who didn't vote because they: 'considered the candidates' manifestos / forum posts, but did not feel that any of the candidates deserved my vote'. Again, if the councillors had concentrated on explaining why their work would make a difference, perhaps that number could have been improved.

Of the remainder, 21% 'forgot', 8.7% 'didn't have the time to consider who to vote for, and vote', 4.9% gave other reasons. Again, all things which might be improved if members felt that the RCVS was relevant to their working lives.

1% 'weren't aware that the elections were taking place'.

One wonders if that 1% knows that Clement Attlee is no longer the Prime Minister.

^1. VetSurgeon Poll 6th May - 8th August 2011. 103 respondents.

The first MRCVS to be killed in the First World War has been honoured with a portrait at the College's offices in Belgravia House - 100 years after his death.

The portrait of Lieutenant Vincent Fox, who was from Dundalk, Co Louth, and was an alumnus of the then Royal Veterinary College in Dublin, was presented by his great grand-nephew, James Tierney, and received by RCVS Registrar Gordon Hockey.

Lieutenant Fox, a member of the former Army Veterinary Corps (AVC), was killed in action by a shell on August 26 1914 during the Battle of Le Cateau in northern France in which British and French forces fought to impede a German advance. He is now buried in the nearby Commonwealth War Grave Cemetery at Caudry.

Paul Watkins, a veterinary surgeon and military historian, conducted the research into Lieutenant Fox, his career and his deeds in the First World War, with the help of his family. He said: "The family story was that he had been found dead in a church with no mark or scars on him and, in fact, this turned out to be completely true.

"The church where he died was in the village of Audencourt in northern France where a dressing station had been set up for the wounded.

"The key issue was that, in the absence of the Royal Army Medical Corps, Lieutenant Fox was ordered to take charge of the medical treatment of the men using his skills as a veterinary surgeon. I'm sure he did his very best under such extreme circumstances but he would have been very ill-equipped."

Talking more generally about the role of the AVC during the First World War, Dr Watkins said: "The AVC made very significant contributions to the war effort because there were so many horses and mules deployed. They would have been responsible for a range of tasks from husbandry - and educating other soldiers on husbandry - to the treatment of injured animals."

In total, some 67 veterinary surgeons are believed to have been killed in the First World War - of whom 34 died from disease, 24 died as a result of wounds and nine were killed in action.

On presenting the portrait, which was drawn by artist Dave Gleeson based on a photograph of Lieutenant Fox, Mr Tierney, from Dublin, said: "I am very pleased that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has accepted this portrait as future generations of vets will be able to see it here and learn about my great grand-uncle's story.

"He has become my hero because he died while trying to save human lives and, for me, that's a huge source of pride.

"While his story is very interesting, however, it's not just about him. There are 66 other names on the RCVS First World War memorial and they all have a story to tell as well."

Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar, added: "We are very pleased to receive this portrait of Lieutenant Fox in recognition of the sacrifice he made during the First World War. The fact that he died while tending to his wounded fellow soldiers demonstrates the caring nature of the profession and the wider contribution to society made by veterinary surgeons.

"In this centenary year I would also like to commend the contribution made by members of the profession as a whole during the war."

Throughout the centenary the RCVS Knowledge Library blog - written by Clare Boulton, Head of Library and Information Services - will be updated with stories about the conduct of veterinary surgeons in the First World War. Visit rcvsknowledgelibraryblog.org to see the updates.

Voting has now opened in the 2019 RCVS Council election. Eligible veterinary surgeons can now vote online or by posting their paper ballot.

There are nine candidates standing in this year’s elections, including five existing Council members eligible for re-election and four candidates not currently on Council. They are:

• Dr Linda Belton MRCVS
  At a glance: Equine clinician. Director of George Veterinary Group, a 40-vet independent practice. Wants to safeguard veterinary surgeons' clinical freedom and prevent it being eroded as a result of corporatisation. 

• Dr Niall Connell MRCVS
  At a glance: After a career largely in small animal charitable practice, Niall had to retire from clinical practice as a result of MS. Has been a council member since 2013 and now RCVS President-elect. By all accounts, something of a national treasure. Wants the College to: "regulate compassionately in partnership with our profession".

• Mr John C Davies MRCVS
  At a glance: Small animal practitioner who, having had his fingers burned in a failed joint venture arrangement and parts of his election manifesto redacted by the RCVS (it can be read in full here: http://www.johndaviesvet.com), now campaigns for justice, integrity, accountability, freedom of speech and due diligence at the College and in the wider profession.

• Dr Joanna (Jo) Dyer MRCVS
  At a glance: Small animal locum practitioner who was first elected to council in 2015 after successfully lobbying for changes to the CoPC Guidance following Chikosi. An all round good egg. Argues passionately against changes to the Code of Conduct to allow remote prescribing of POM-Vs.

• Professor Timothy (Tim) Greet FRCVS
  At a glance: Widely-published equine practitioner and past-pres of BEVA, BVA and WEVA. In favour of RCVS regulation of para-professionals. Argues that whilst technology is to be welcomed, diagnosis and prescribing must be restricted to animals 'under our care'.

• Professor John Innes FRCVS
  At a glance: RCVS Specialist in small animal orthopaedics (with 85 peer-reviewed papers to his name) and Referrals Director at CVS. Pledges to speak as an independent veterinary surgeon - not a corporate representative - if elected. On record as being pleased that the proposed RCVS telemedicine trial was delayed pending further consultation. In favour of 'nurse practitioner' becoming a regulated option for RVNs.

• Dr Thomas (Tom) Lonsdale MRCVS
  At a glance: Single-issue candidate with a 23-year history of standing for election to draw attention to the supposed evils of commercial pet foods. Based in Australia. 2000-1 outsider. 

• Dr Katherine (Kate) Richards MRCVS
  At a glance: 15 years in farm animal practice before taking up various positions in industry and government. Champions a healthy work-life balance, fair pay, workplace flexibility and supportive work practices.

• Mr Peter Robinson MRCVS
  At a glance: A long career in independent farm, equine and small animal practice, followed by a stint in sole practice in Dubai. Has been on Council for 4 years. Like Jo Dyer, argues that when it comes to remote prescribing and telemedicine, "we must not change the standards of ‘under our care'."

Ballot papers and booklets containing candidates’ details and manifestos have been sent by post to all veterinary surgeons eligible to vote and an email containing a unique link to a secure voting site has also been sent by Electoral Reform Services, which runs the election on behalf of the College.

All votes must be cast, either online or by post, by 5pm on Friday 26 April 2019. 

Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for the election, said: "Last year we saw another very strong turnout for the RCVS Council election with over a fifth of the profession casting votes. The turnout was again helped by regular email reminders and the fact the voting website can be easily accessed by just clicking on a link.

"I would like to remind the profession that, following last year’s changes to our governance structure after a Legislative Reform Order was passed through Parliament, you can now only choose up to three candidates. I do hope members of the profession take this opportunity to influence the governance and policies of the RCVS."

Those who are eligible to vote but have not received either an email or ballot paper should contact Luke Bishop, RCVS Senior Communications Officer, on l.bishop@rcvs.org.uk.