Miss Miles and her co-defendants mistakenly believed that the animals, which included a lamb, hens, piglets, goats, a calf, dogs and a pig, were in poor condition.
They went to steal the animals from their owners' property after dark, dressed in dark clothing; some in balaclavas.
Miss Miles was sentenced to a community order for a period of 18 months rehabilitation activity requirement and 100 hours unpaid work rehabilitation, to pay £250 compensation, an £85 victim surcharge, and £400 in costs.
The Committee found that the facts of the case were proved on admission by Miss Miles and on the basis that they accepted the copy of the Certificate of Conviction.
Deciding on Miss Miles’ fitness to practise, the Committee considered the evidence before it and the advice of the Legal Assessor.
It also considered the transcript of remarks of the sentencing judge, as well as the fact that the events which led to the convictions occurred while Miss Miles was a registered veterinary nurse with the RCVS.
In terms of mitigating factors, the Committee considered that there was no financial gain associated with Miss Miles’ actions.
In terms of aggravating factors, it noted the risk of injury to animals, that Miss Miles’ behaviour was pre-meditated, that individuals had been targeted in their own homes after dark, the stress and emotional harm to the owners, and that there had been repeated criminal offending.
The Committee also considered Miss Miles’ motivations in respect of animal welfare in coming to its decision.
However, it assessed the offences to be serious, taking into account their nature and circumstances.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was aware that breaches of the Code do not in themselves mean that the respondent is unfit to practise by reason of the conviction.
"However, the Committee took into account the nature and circumstances of the conviction and also considered the wider public interest.
"The Committee was satisfied that the respondent’s behaviour which led to the conviction created a real risk of harm to the animals in question, as was clear from the basis upon which the respondent was sentenced.
“Further, the behaviour which led to the conviction for the repeated offences in the circumstances in question brings the veterinary nursing profession into disrepute.
"To find otherwise would undermine public confidence in the profession and fail to uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.
“Accordingly, the Committee found that the conviction, set out in the charge, renders the respondent unfit to practise.”
When determining an appropriate sanction, the Committee considered the same aggravating factors it had evaluated when assessing fitness to practice. However, further mitigating factors, in addition to the fact that Miss Miles had no financial gain, included:
The Committee considered the testimonials and character references which attested to Miss Miles’ exemplary practice, integrity, professionalism, compassionate approach to animals, commitment to animal welfare, work in educating others in animal welfare, and commitment to campaigning for animal welfare.
However, it was noted that Miss Miles gave the impression to the Committee that while she accepted that it was wrong to commit the criminal offences, she also believed that her intention to protect the animals’ welfare was a justification.
Speaking on the sanction, Paul Morris said: “The Committee was of the view that the conviction was particularly serious, in that it involved offences of dishonesty on a repeated basis.
"The Committee also took into account that the respondent has invoked her beliefs to undermine an aspect of the sentencing judge’s remarks and has used those beliefs to justify her actions at the time before this Committee.
“However, the risk of re-offending is low and, as already stated, the Committee accepts the respondent’s assertion that she does not intend to break the law again, and the Committee is assured in this regard by the lack of repetition in the last six years.
"There was insight shown by the respondent into the effect of her conviction on public trust and confidence in the profession.
"The Committee weighed the demands of the public interest, as well as the previously stated mitigating and aggravating factors.
"In all the circumstances of this particular case, the Committee concluded that both a reprimand and a warning as to future conduct is sufficient and proportionate to meet the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards.”
The Committee went on to consider an order of suspension but decided that this would serve no useful purpose in light of the low risk of repetition of criminal offending, the nature of which was unconnected to her daily role as an RVN.
It could see no identifiable risk to animals now and in the future.
The Committee decided that to impose a suspension would be punitive and disproportionate.
The reprimand and warning sanction imposed on the respondent will remain on her RCVS record indefinitely and will be taken into consideration should there be any future misconduct.
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/
Council members voted in favour of becoming a fully-appointed governing Council and to explore retaining elected representation on a future council or committee focussed on 'upstream regulation' and development of the profession
Council also voted to move towards greater parity between professional and lay RCVS Council members, but delayed a decision on the precise balance until it has the opportunity to consider the matter in more detail.
Council voted to remove veterinary school appointees from Council, agreeing to discuss the future composition of the RCVS Education Committee at a later date.
Council then voted to further investigate a number of alternative governance arrangement suggestions, including independent oversight of the College, and to review term limits across all appointed positions.
RCVS President Linda Belton said: “Thank you to all who took part in the consultation and made suggestions on alternative and additional arrangements that might be made regarding our governance.
"Thank you also to Council members for a robust discussion of these proposals.
“We still have a number of important governance issues to discuss at a future date and the proposals that Council members have voted to approve today will not be brought into immediate effect, but will be included in our proposals to government for new veterinary legislation.
“As we seek reform of veterinary regulation via new primary legislation, it is important that our governance arrangements not only inspire public confidence and trust but also allow us, as a Royal College that regulates, to work with the professions on our upstream regulatory activities, not only to ensure that individuals are fit for practice, but also that we maintain a profession fit for purpose.
“The decision to explore retaining an elected element on a future veterinary council or committee, responsible for work dedicated to the development of the professions, gives a clear indication of the value of our ‘Royal College that regulates’ model.
"We have also made a further commitment to public assurance by agreeing to explore independent oversight of the RCVS.
“Any future appointments process developed by the RCVS will be committed to adhering to the Public Standards Authority’s principles on appointments; these are merit; fairness; transparency and openness; and inspiring confidence.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil-nov24
George Philippus Hauptfleisch faced three charges in relation to allegations of clinical failings surrounding three patients:
The first charge surrounded the allegations that in 2018, Mr Hauptfleisch failed to provide appropriate and adequate care to Steel, a Cane Corso Mastiff, in that he performed surgery outside of his competence, failed to offer a reasonable range of treatment options as alternatives, failed to make adequate enquiries about the possibility of a referral to a specialist, failed to obtain informed consent to the surgery, and failed to maintain adequate clinical records.
The second charge, in relation to a German Shepherd, alleged that in 2019, Mr Hauptfleisch failed to provide appropriate and adequate care when he undertook surgery which was outside of his competence and failed to undertake the surgery to an adequate standard, failed to note sufficient details to show that informed consent for the surgery had been obtained, and failed to maintain adequate clinical records.
The third charge, in relation to a Retriever, alleged that Mr Hauptfleisch failed to provide appropriate and adequate care with regards to surgery he performed when it was outside of his competence, failed to undertake the surgery to an adequate standard, failed to note sufficient details that showed informed consent had been obtained, and failed to maintain adequate clinical records.
Prior to the hearing, Mr Hauptfleisch made an application to the Committee to dispose of the matter by way of adjournment for an indefinite period, against his undertakings to request the Registrar to remove him from the Register, and never to seek restoration to the Register.
In deciding whether to grant the application, the Committee took into account a number of factors.
These included the fact that Mr Hauptfliesch had, in December 2021, returned to South Africa, after a career of over 32 years in the UK, and now resides there permanently, the fact that he has no intention of moving back to the UK, and that he had not practised as a veterinary surgeon since the day he left.
He had also removed himself from the equivalent register in South Africa and the Committee noted that the RCVS would inform the South African Veterinary Council of the outcome of these proceedings.
The Committee also noted that there were no previous disciplinary findings against him, that Mr Hauptfleisch now spends the majority of his time undertaking charitable activities, including running a mentoring programme for young people, and, that he expressed deep regret for anything which he did or did not do which failed to protect the welfare of animals or caused upset to his clients and fellow members of the profession.
Mr Hauptfleisch also drew attention to the fact that the charges did not allege dishonesty and that the reputation of the profession would be upheld as Mr Hauptfleisch would no longer practise as a veterinary surgeon and would not return to practise.
Therefore, it would not be proportionate, nor in the public interest, for there to be a lengthy contested hearing resulting in substantial costs for both the RCVS and for Mr Hauptfleisch.
Hilary Lloyd, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Taking into account the removal from the Register and the respondent’s undertaking never to apply for restoration, in conjunction with all of the circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that allowing the application would be sufficient to uphold the public interest, confidence in the profession and the RCVS as a regulator, and protect the welfare of animals.
“As a result of all the factors set out, and taking into account the nature of the charges which relate to the alleged inadequate standard of clinical practice, the Committee decided that this is not a case in which there were wider issues relevant to the profession at large, such as those which had public policy implications and which required full consideration at a hearing.
“The Committee was satisfied that neither the public interest nor the welfare of animals demands that there be a full hearing in this case.
“Taking into account proportionality and weighing in the balance all the circumstances of the case, the interests of justice, the public interest, the need to uphold proper standards of conduct and performance, and the need to protect the welfare of animals, the Committee decided to grant the respondent’s application.”
Mr Bowles faced four charges, but did not respond to the College's notification about the hearing, so the Committee decided to proceed in his absence.
The first charge was that in 2020, while attending a farm in Lincolnshire in his capacity as an Official Veterinarian (OV), Mr Bowles carried out Intradermal Comparative Tuberculin (ICT) tests on a herd of cattle but failed to measure the skin thickness of all the cattle using callipers and failed to take and record measurements for the cattle.
The Committee was provided with evidence that Mr Bowles had, in earlier correspondence with the College, admitted that he had failed to follow Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) standard operating procedures for ICT testing at the farm and so the charge was found proven.
The second charge was that he then certified the results of the inaccurate ICT test he'd performed earlier.
The Committee found this charge proven on the basis that, without using callipers to measure skin thickness, he was not entitled to certify the test.
The third charge was that his conduct in relation to the first two charges was dishonest, misleading and risked undermining government testing procedures designed to promote public health and animal welfare.
The Committee found all elements of the charges proven.
The final charge was that Mr Bowles's conduct took place despite warnings, advice and re-training being given by the APHA.
These included: a letter sent to Mr Bowles’s by APHA in 2014 about the suspension of his OV status after he failed to comply with APHA rules; a letter sent by the APHA to Mr Bowles’s employer in October 2016 regarding issues of non-compliance it had found during a September 2016 audit; and the suspension of Mr Bowles’s OV duties by his employer, pending further training, following issues of non-compliance.
Given Mr Bowles’s history of non-compliance with APHA standard operating procedures and standards, the Committee found the charge proven.
The Committee found that charges 1 to 3 amounted to serious professional misconduct but that charge 4, while making the conduct in the other charges more serious, did not in and of itself constitute serious professional misconduct.
In determining the most appropriate sanction for Mr Bowles, the Committee found that he had paid ‘scant regard’ to the testing procedures set out by APHA and breached the RCVS certification requirements set out in the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons in ‘numerous and serious’ ways.
Hilary Lloyd, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee’s view is that the respondent’s conduct in refusing to follow the OV Instructions when testing cattle in May 2020 constituted conduct of an egregious kind.
"In addition, there are several aggravating elements which can be applied to his misconduct, including a risk to animal or human health; his lack of probity and integrity in certifying test results which he knew were non-compliant and unreliable; recklessness in reaching a conscious decision to ignore the OV Instructions; his failure to comply with the requirements of the position of trust and responsibility which attached to his APHA authorisation; and against a backdrop of sustained pattern of behaviour that displayed blatant disregard of the system that regulated TB testing by OVs.
"It follows that the respondent manifested no insight into the seriousness of his misconduct when acting as an OV.”
The Committee considered whether there were any mitigating factors regarding Mr Bowles’ conduct.
It took into account that Mr Bowles had not secured any financial advantage, that there was no actual harm to animals, and that he had a long career as a veterinary surgeon, although with a history of non-compliance.
It noted that there had been some late admissions of misconduct by Mr Bowles when he tendered an apology, but found this mitigation was undermined by the fact his explanations lacked consistency and that he had also initially asserted that he had used callipers during the testing.
Due to the seriousness of the non-compliance, the dishonesty and the potential risk to public health, the Committee considered that removing Mr Bowles from the Register was the only proportionate and appropriate response to the scale of misconduct.
Hilary added: “Given the amount of advice received and re-training which the respondent was required to undertake, he has already had ample opportunity to remediate his practice but has not done so.
"The Committee is therefore concerned that there is a very real risk of further repetition of this conduct in the future were he to be permitted to remain on the Register.
“The Committee’s concern in this regard stems from the fact that the dishonesty of which the respondent has been found guilty, was not dishonesty committed on the spur of the moment.
"The respondent had ample opportunities for reflection before resolving to act as he did.
"This places his acts of dishonesty in the most serious category.
“The public is entitled to expect that it can have confidence in the certifications of a veterinary surgeon who is carrying out a public duty on behalf of that public body.
"Indeed, that is the whole purpose behind the requirement that OVs undertake additional and specialised training before being permitted to undertake OV duties.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Ms Gurrin faced two charges, the first being that she had issued prescriptions for Roaccutane tables, indicating they were for the treatment of an animal when they were in fact for a human.
The second charge was that Dr Gurrin’s conduct in relation to the first charge was dishonest and/or misleading, and took place in circumstances where Dr Gurrin was not professionally qualified to write a prescription for a human.
Ms Gurrin admitted the allegation in its entirety and the Committee therefore found it proved.
The College submitted that Dr Gurrin breached fundamental tenets of the Code of Professional Conduct and acted dishonestly and, as such, that the admitted facts amounted to disgraceful conduct.
The Committee accepted that Dr Gurrin’s conduct involved dishonesty, but took into account the context: that Dr Gurrin was seeking to help in continuing a course of medication that she understood to have been properly prescribed by a specialist physician.
Mitigating factors included the lack of artifice or sophistication in the drawing of the prescription and its presentation to the pharmacist, in that Ms Gurrin didn't invent an animal name or species, or any kind of elaboration or backstory when challenged by the pharmacist on the prescription.
In addition, there was no financial or other personal gain, it was a single isolated incident, it was a spur of the moment decision without reflection, no harm was caused or risked to any animal, Ms Gurrin had a long and previously unblemished career and lastly she showed insight into the offence.
The committee also took into account the character testimonials which showed Ms Gurrin not only to be an exceptional vet, but a dedicated professional who had nurtured a very strong team, and someone who is held in extraordinarily high regard by both her clients and colleagues.
There were no aggravating factors.
The Committee considered that the case was too serious to take no further action, but that there was no ongoing danger to the public or risk to animal health.
Kathryn Peaty, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee has reached the conclusion that it is appropriate to impose a reprimand and a warning in this case.
"It would serve no purpose to impose a more severe sanction of a suspension and deprive Dr Gurrin’s clients of her valuable service and to deprive Dr Gurrin of the opportunity to practise for however short a time.
"The Committee considered that it is right to recognise that this misconduct was an aberration in a fine career, which is not characteristic of this veterinary surgeon and which happened when she was off her guard and in circumstances when she was mistakenly trying to help another in what she thought was a safe way.
“The Committee therefore decided, in the particular circumstance of this case, to impose a reprimand and warning on the basis that it would be proportionate in order to maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.”
Ms Parody faced two charges, the first of which related to her treatment of a cat named Shadow and had multiple elements:
The second charge was that her conduct in relation to all parts of the first charge was dishonest.
At the outset of the hearing Ms Parody’s counsel admitted to the majority of the elements of the first charge, although denied she had removed the microchip in order to mislead others about Shadow’s identity.
Ms Parody also admitted that her failures to inform the owner that euthanasia had not been carried out, of the treatment plan, of the removal of the microchip and that she had taken Shadow home was dishonest.
However, she denied dishonesty in relation to failing to make adequate records.
The Committee went on to consider the facts of the remaining, contested charges.
After hearing evidence from a number of witnesses, the Committee concluded that it was not proven that Dr Parody removed the microchip in order to mislead others about his identity, and that, in this respect, she had therefore not acted dishonestly.
In relation to whether Ms Parody was acting dishonestly in relation to failure to make adequate clinical records, the Committee also found this not proven.
Having determined the facts of the case, the Committee went on to consider if the proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In terms of aggravating factors, it considered that there was actual injury to an animal – albeit small and while the cat was under sedation - and that Ms Parody had engaged in conduct that was in breach of a client’s trust.
In mitigation, the Committee considered the immense pressure that Ms Parody and her colleagues in the practice were under at that time due to the coronavirus pandemic and the fact that she had acted in a way which she thought was best for Shadow’s welfare and which clouded the rest of her decision making.
Furthermore, the Committee considered this was a single isolated incident, that she took the decision without the opportunity for full reflection and the length of time since the original incident.
However, it found Ms Parody guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to all the proven charges.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “However well-intentioned, Dr Parody made some serious errors of judgment with regard to her approach to Shadow and embarked upon a course of dishonest conduct, which started with her failure to inform the owner about her decision not to euthanase Shadow, was followed by her treatment of Shadow, including his castration and microchip removal, all without the consent of the owner, and ended with her taking Shadow home over Christmas, again without the owner’s consent.
"In addition, she failed to make adequate clinical records with regards to Shadow.”
The Committee then went on to consider the most appropriate sanction for Ms Parody.
It heard a large number of positive testimonials as to her character and professionalism from both clients and former and current work colleagues.
The Committee also considered further mitigating factors such as the fact she had no previous disciplinary issues, had a long and unblemished career both before and since this isolated incident, her open and frank admissions regarding some of the charges, the significant impact she displayed regarding her misconduct, and her genuine expressions of remorse and apology.
Paul Morris added: “The Committee recognises that there is a scale of seriousness of dishonesty and therefore gave careful consideration as to where Dr Parody’s dishonest conduct fell to be judged.
"The Committee was concerned with her conduct between 20 December and 31 December 2021, as found proved.
"What led to what she has admitted as dishonest behaviour, was her acting to protect the welfare of the cat.
“The Committee was confident that she most certainly did not set out to act dishonestly.
"She made an initial error of judgement and everything that followed flowed from that.
"What she went on to do was something of a panicky attempt to cover up what she had done initially, so that she could decide on how to rectify it but, the Committee was satisfied, all done with the best of intentions and in the best interests of the cat and its owner.
"She had not acted out of any personal or financial gain or malicious intent.
"She had created a mess and she was trying to sort that mess out.”
After deciding that a reprimand was the most appropriate and proportionate sanction to impose, Paul Morris concluded: “In all the, somewhat exceptional, circumstances of this case, the Committee was satisfied that a reprimand would provide adequate protection to animals, as it was satisfied Dr Parody was most unlikely to ever make such a flawed set of decisions again.
"The Committee was satisfied that Dr Parody does not represent a risk to animals going forward, indeed from the character evidence it is clear that she always puts the welfare of animals first.
"She has also shown, since this episode, that she can work under pressure and not resort to making bad decisions and thus the Committee considered the wider public interest would be served in this case by a reprimand.”
The guide explains:
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/features/standards-and-advice-update-advice-published-on-amended
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/veterinary-medicines-guidance-notes-vmgns
The awards fall into two categories, those which you need to be nominated for by other people and those which are also open to self-nomination:
Requiring nomination by another person:
Self-nominations allowed:
The deadline for the 2025 awards is Friday, 13 December 2024.
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/how-we-work/rcvs-honours-awards
The course has been made available after its authors, Dr Katherine Wakelin and Sarah Corthorne from the University of Surrey, received a Mind Matters Grant to conduct research which found it improved the mental wellbeing of veterinary professionals.
Katherine and Sarah will also be hosting a webinar from 7pm – 8pm on Tuesday 3rd September to discuss the importance of self-compassion, provide an overview of their research, as well as information on the course itself.
Katherine said: “Our recent randomised control trial has shown the course to significantly improve resilience and self-compassion and reduce rumination and self-criticism amongst veterinarians.
"Therefore, Sarah and I are delighted to now be disseminating the CFT course freely to the veterinary profession, so that as many people as possible are able to benefit from the evidence-based resource.
“Even though our research was conducted on veterinary surgeons, we hope that the course will be useful to all those working in the veterinary team as the content can be applied in a number of contexts.
“Our webinar will explain more about our research, as well as some of the science behind the effectiveness of the course in a veterinary context.
"So, if you are interested in learning more about how CFT may be able to help you and your team, both in a personal and professional capacity, please do come along.”
In order to access the online compassion course, individuals are invited to complete a short questionnaire before and after watching one video (10-15 minutes long) each day for 14 days. The aim of the video intervention is to develop self-compassion skills and reduce self-criticism. This will also allow Katherine and Sarah to evaluate the ongoing impact that the videos are having on those working in the sector.
https://vetmindmatters.org/resources/free-online-compassion-course-for-veterinarian-mental-wellbeing/
The first change has been made to paragraph 1.6 which now advises general practitioners to check whether the vet they are referring a case to is on the RCVS Specialist or Advanced Practitioner list, explaining the difference to the client and what sets them apart from other vets who might be prepared to accept a referral.
Also, practitioners who accept a referral should provide information to the referrer about the experience and status of those likely to be responsible for the case.
The guidance about conflicts of interest in paragraph 1.7 has also been amended such that referring surgeons should tell clients if they are referring their case to a practice owned by the same group.
There is new guidance about how vets and nurses talk about referral practitioners, with the new advice being to focus on accepted terms such as 'RCVS Specialist' and 'RCVS Advanced Practitioner', and avoid more general terms like 'referral surgeon' or 'consultant' to avoid confusion or implying that individuals hold more qualifications than they do.
Lastly, there is new guidance that vets may only use the name 'Specialist' in the name of their practice where there is genuine and meaningful involvement, and oversight, in case management by at least one RCVS specialist in all disciplines where any clinical services are offered under the business name.
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/advice-and-guidance/code-of-professional-conduct-for-veterinary-surgeons/supporting-guidance/referrals-and-second-opinions/
Dr Radev faced three charges concerning his treatment of an American Bulldog in 2021.
The first charge, which contained a number of sub-charges, was that he failed to provide appropriate and adequate care to the animal.
The second was that he failed to keep adequate records.
The final charge was that his failure to keep records was misleading and dishonest.
At the outset of the hearing Dr Radev admitted that, having recognised free fluid in the dog’s abdomen, he failed to take adequate and appropriate action and failed to aspirate the dog’s abdomen with regards to the possibility of it having septic peritonitis.
He also admitted writing the clinical notes approximately two months after the event.
After considering and rejecting an application by the RCVS to amend and withdraw elements of the first charge, the Committee then considered each of the remaining sub-charges in turn.
Sub-charge 1(a) was that Dr Radev repeatedly administered meloxicam to the dog when it had recently undergone intestinal surgery and had a recent history of vomiting.
The Committee found that this was not proven.
Dr Radev said it had been administered just once and the Committee was not satisfied so as to be sure that it was repeatedly administered.
Sub-charge 1(b) (i) was that Dr Radev failed to recognise free fluid in the dog’s abdomen as shown on an ultrasound scan.
The Committee found this not proven.
Sub-charge 1(c) (i) was that Dr Radev failed to recognise the possibility of septic peritonitis in the dog.
Sub-charge 1(e) was that Dr Radev failed to provide a full medical history when referring the dog to a different practice.
The Committee found the charge not proven.
Regarding charge 2 (ii), that Dr Radev had failed to include in clinical records a reference to the colonotomy surgery, the Committee found this charge not proven as it had been provided with clinical records disproving this charge.
Finally, regarding both aspects of charge 3, namely that Dr Radev had acted misleadingly and dishonesty, the Committee found this not proven.
The Committee then considered whether the charges that Dr Radev had admitted amounted to gross misconduct in a professional respect.
In all cases it found that, while Dr Radev’s conduct had fallen below what was expected of veterinary professionals, it did not fall so far below as to constitute serious professional misconduct.
Three members (one vet, one new grad and one nurse) are being sought to join a new engagement group tasked with raising awareness of the importance of CPD for veterinary surgeons and nurses, supporting members in how to reflect on their CPD as a way of consolidating learning, and considering plans for how the benefits of CPD and the VetGDP can be communicated to the professions.
The group will also oversee and update CPD and VetGDP guidance documents, as well as overseeing updates to the VetGDP Adviser and VetGDP Peer Reviewer training and guidance.
RCVS Council member Dr Olivia Cook MRCVS will be chairing the group.
She said: “The Engagement Group has been set up in recognition that, although the majority of the professions are engaged with meeting their CPD requirements and completing the VetGDP, there are still those who feel confused about the requirements or remain uncompliant for other reasons, and we would like very much to help them.
“Therefore, this is an exciting opportunity for anyone who wants to play an active part in advancing veterinary standards by ensuring that as many members of the professions as possible have the benefits of lifelong learning in their own practice and their ongoing work for animal health and welfare. In doing so they will help grow public confidence in the professions.
“From the VetGDP perspective, we’re particularly keen that there’s a strong peer-to-peer element, so that those who are doing the VetGDP, or have just recently completed it, are using their recent experience and understanding to evolve the policy and drive engagement.”
Applicants who are interested will have until Friday 30 August to apply to become members of the CPD and VetGDP Engagement Group and are invited to send a concise email to CPD@rcvs.org.uk explaining their experience and how they feel that can contribute to work of the committee.
The RCVS is looking for two Advanced Practitioners working in practice who have completed a designated CertAVP qualification to join the Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Practice (CertAVP) Subcommittee to help actively advance the standards and policies of the RCVS CertAVP.
Applicants who are interested also have until Friday 30 August to apply to become members.
Applicants are invited to send an email to certavp@rcvs.org.uk with a summary of their experience and what skills and knowledge you feel that you can bring to this committee.
Finally, the College is also looking to recruit examiners for the Statutory Membership Examination, from 2025 onwards.
Examiners need to have been Members of the RCVS for a minimum of three years and be familiar with the day one competences for new registrants and the standards expected of final year students and new graduates. Experience as an assessor or examiner is preferred, although not essential as training will be provided. The College is looking for examiners with knowledge across a range of species domains including equine, veterinary public health, farm and small animal.
Contact Jenny Soreskog-Turp, RCVS Postgraduate Lead, on j.soreskog-turp@rcvs.org.uk
All veterinary surgeons, nurses and students over the age of 18 were invited to participate by email, which elicited 2,781 complete responses and a further 631 partial responses, 1682 from vets, 328 from vet students, 1,369 from nurses and 553 from student vet nurses.
80% of respondents were female, 16.8% male, 1.4% non-binary, 0.8% genderfluid and 0.9% preferred not to say or to self describe.
93.3% were white, 2% were Asian or Asian British, 0.6% were black, black British, Caribbean or African.
The remainder identified as 'other ethnic group', mixed or multiple ethnic groups, or preferred not to say.
90.4% of participants worked within clinical veterinary practice, three-quarters in small animal practice.
Almost two-thirds worked part time.
Paradoxically, although around 50% of respondents described their physical or mental health as 'good' or 'very good', 75.6% considered themselves to have at least one disability or chronic condition (61% chronic, 48% physical, 39% mental health and 30% neurodivergent).
Female veterinary surgeons were significantly more likely to suffer from a mental health condition (48.3%) than males (19.2%).
Mental health conditions were far more common amongst the young (51% of those aged 18-29), than the old (28% of 50-59 year olds, declining to 9% of 70-79 year olds)
Veterinary nurses were more likely to say they have a mental health condition (47.3%), than veterinary surgeons (27.9%).
As with mental health, the proportion of respondents identifying as neurodivergent decreased with age (42.3% of respondents aged 18-29 vs 6.7% of those in the 70-79 age group).
Whilst overall, 29.8% identify as neurodivergent, the figure was notably higher (83.3%) amongst those who identify as non-binary or genderfluid.
The number of people with a physical condition varied less with age and gender, although of course, broadly speaking, age brings with it an increase in physical problems.
60% of participants said they are affected by their disability/chronic condition every day, and 68% agreed or strongly agreed that they had to make significant changes to their life to continue working.
The most frequently reported symptoms of disability/chronic condition were mental health (45.2%), pain (36.4%), learning, understanding or concentrating (33.8%), and stamina or energy limitations (32.3%).
When asked if they were treated different at work because of their disability or chronic condition, 49.5% said they had not and 34.7% said they had.
Of those who felt they had been treated differently, 45% thought that disclosing their condition had contributed to this.
18% of those in education and 36% of those in work said they had experienced discrimination, bullying or harassment because of their disability/chronic condition.
Discrimination, bullying or harassment was more likely to be reported by those with a mental health condition or who identify as neurodivergent (47% and 46%), than those with a physical or chronic condition (38% and 37%)
Perceived discrimination, bullying or harassment was most likely to have come from managers (76%) and colleagues (64%) compared to clients and 'other' (15%).
63% of respondents believed there was a strong or moderate understanding of the Equality Act at their workplace but 12% thought their employer had no knowledge or understanding.
45% thought their employer had strong or moderate understanding of the Access to Work scheme, while 27% reported no understanding at their workplace.
Examples of good practice were given by some respondents about their existing or previous workplaces. These included reasonable adjustments such as adjusted working hours, environment and task adaptations, alongside good communication, support (from colleagues, managers and external sources), and additional resources.
Gurpreet Gill, Leadership and Inclusion Manager at the RCVS, said: “While there are some sobering elements in this report, and some clear and unfortunate examples of poor practice and discrimination, the overwhelming feeling is that there is goodwill and a desire to help people out there in the professions, but sometimes a lack of understanding and knowledge on how best to do this.
"Of course, there are also some excellent examples of good practice in terms of putting in place adjustments and accommodations for employees and staff with disabilities, as well as for students on placements.
“Overall, this should be taken as a call for more members of the professions to familiarise themselves with the Equality Act 2010 (https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010) and its provisions.
Under this legislation, it is unlawful to discriminate against people with protected characteristics, including disability.
"The act sets out the legal requirement for workplaces and educational institutions, among others, to make reasonable adjustments to avoid disabled people being placed at a disadvantage.
“We will now be considering how we, as the regulator and Royal College, can best support members of the professions in understanding their rights and responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010, and what further training and education can be provided, looking at the RCVS Academy as a potential vehicle for doing so.”
Olivia Anderson-Nathan, a Director of BVCIS added: “Overall, the report demonstrates that although there are systemic issues that require a shift in workplace culture, there may be some relatively ‘easy wins’.
"For example, improving line manager knowledge of the Equality Act and providing reasonable adjustments that are typically inexpensive and simple to implement, such as providing seating and ergonomic equipment, and rota or shift changes.
"Many changes, like flexible working, will actually benefit everyone.
"Most importantly, employers and educators need to make sure that those with disabilities, neurodivergence, and chronic illnesses understand their rights and are given positive support to identify their needs.
"This means co-designing individualised adjustments and avoiding a one size fits all approach.
“BVCIS will continue our work to educate the profession, offering support and guidance for anyone not sure where to start.
"We also offer community support through our Veterinary Spoonholders Facebook page for disabled, chronically ill and/or neurodivergent people in the veterinary world so – please do come and join us if any of the experiences detailed in the report resonate with you.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/publications
Mr Shillabeer faced five charges which largely related to his alleged prescription of contra-indicated NSAIDs and corticosteroids.
He was also charged with prescribing frusemide to a pregnant dog when there was no evidence of a benefit of so doing.
He was also charged with performing inadequate spay surgery.
Mr Shillabeer did not admit to any of the charges, engaged with the College and responded to all requests for information, as well as being present in-person at the hearing.
He made an application to the Committee to dispose of the matter by way of adjournment, subject to the Committee accepting his written undertaking to remove his name from the Register and never to apply to be restored to the Register.
In support of his application, Mr Shillabeer’s legal counsel referred to his client’s witness statement, which set out that he had previously attempted to sell his practice but had been unsuccessful and that he had since closed it.
His legal counsel also asked the Committee to consider the fact that Mr Shillabeer is almost 85 years old and has had an unblemished 60-year career, has had no previous disciplinary findings against him, had put his practice up for sale and made efforts to guide his previous clients to ensure continuity of care elsewhere, and that he deeply regrets anything he has done, which has failed to protect the welfare of animals, or has caused concern or upset to his clients and fellow members of the profession.
Mr Shillabeer's counsel also asked the Committee to take into consideration that his undertakings would have the effect of protecting the welfare of animals and uphold the reputation of the profession as Mr Shillabeer is no longer in practice.
He stated it would be not proportionate, or in the public interest, for there to be a lengthy contested hearing resulting in substantial costs for both the RCVS and Mr Shillabeer.
The College’s legal representative stated that the RCVS did not oppose the application, and that it took a neutral stance.
She highlighted that Mr Shillabeer’s removal from the Register, together with his undertaking never to apply for restoration, would go far beyond anything the Committee could direct by way of sanction after a full enquiry, that Mr Shillabeer retired from practice on 23 July 2024 and does not intend to return, that a full enquiry would take a significant amount of time and expense, that the complainant supports the case being dealt with in the manner proposed by Mr Shillabeer, and that there are no previous findings against Mr Shillabeer.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Taking into account the undertaking never to practice again, in conjunction with all of the circumstances and context set out, the Committee considered that by allowing the application, such an outcome would be sufficient to uphold the public interest, confidence in the profession and the RCVS as regulator, and protect the welfare of animals.
“As a result of all the factors set out, the Committee decided that this is not a case in which the public interest or the welfare of animals demands that there be a full hearing.
Mr Shillabeer was removed from the Register with immediate effect.
The webinar will discuss the importance of self-compassion and provide an overview of Katherine and Sarah’s research into the effectiveness of an online compassion focused therapy (CFT) intervention in improving the mental wellbeing of veterinary professionals.
Katherine and Sarah will also go into more detail about how to get the most out of a CFT course they have created, which will be made freely available for veterinary professionals on the Mind Matters website and on the RCVS YouTube channel .
"Therefore, Sarah and I are delighted to now be disseminating the CFT course freely to the veterinary professions, so that as many people are able to benefit from the evidence-based resource as possible.
Katherine and Sarah’s compassion focused therapy course will be made available on the Mind Matters website in due course. In order to access the online compassion course, individuals are invited to complete a short questionnaire before and after watching one 10-15 minute video each day for 14 days, with the aim of the video intervention being to develop self-compassion skills and reduce self-criticism.
https://vetmindmatters.org/events/
Linda gave her address at the Royal Institute of British Architects, venue for the RCVS Annual General Meeting last Friday.
Linda, an equine vet and director of the Wiltshire-based George Veterinary Group, said: “A Royal College and a regulator – it’s a challenge but this combined role is also an opportunity for us.
“In the time I’ve served the RCVS, I’ve definitely learnt some of what it takes to fulfil these roles under the remit of both the Veterinary Surgeons Act and our Royal Charter; to think not just from personal perspective and experience, and also to try to look beyond the needs of the profession today and consider what tomorrow might bring.
“Vets are not just one thing.
"The roles we fill in our working lives are many and varied, and I would argue that the MRCVS is the best placed arbiter of animal health and welfare.
"As such, keeping the MRCVS at the heart of decision-making around how veterinary care and services are provided is essential both to safeguard animal health and welfare and also to retain public trust in our work.
“Cultivating trust is a big part of what many of us do, day in and day out – trust in us from within our teams, from our clients and perhaps even from our patients.
“The RCVS with its two hats does a tough job for both the professions and the public.
"In many cases, the interests of the professions and the public align and there is no conflict.
"Of course, as a regulator where the interests don’t align, the RCVS regulates in the wider public interest and this, too, is a positive for us as a profession.
“Working in a regulated environment is a strength for us.
"The landscape in which we work has changed and the regulatory environment needs to change too. Now we are the other side of the general election, work can continue on legislative reform seeking parliamentary time for a new Veterinary Surgeons Act.”
As the 13th female President of the RCVS, Linda will lead an Officer Team comprising the now Senior Vice-President Dr Sue Paterson FRCVS, Junior Vice-President Professor Tim Parkin FRCVS and Treasurer Dr Tshidi Gardiner MRCVS as well as VN Council Chair Belinda Andrews-Jones RVN, who attends Officer Team meetings as an observer.
The course explains what to expect if you’re a veterinary surgeon who has had a concern raised about them.
Clare Stringfellow, Case Manager in the RCVS Professional Conduct Team, said: "We appreciate that concerns can be very worrying, and we hope that, through this course, we can give vets and nurses a better understanding of the process and how to obtain additional support.
“The course will allow participants to understand the different stages involved and the key activities that happen at each point, as well as detailing some of the common concerns we receive and how these are dealt with.”
The CPD course, which includes film and audio content, takes about 30 minutes to complete.
https://academy.rcvs.org.uk
Niall, who stepped up from Vice Chair to acting interim Chair of the Fellowship Board after the resignation of the previous Chair, has been formally elected as Chair of the Board.
In his role as Chair, Niall will continue to lead the Board, which is responsible for setting the criteria for joining the Fellowship across all three of its routes to entry, as well as the process by which applications are assessed.
An election for the position of Vice Chair of the Fellowship Board will take place in the autumn.
Niall said: “I am honoured beyond words to be elected Chair of the RCVS Fellowship and I'm very grateful for the support received to achieve this.
“I know I have very big shoes to fill, thanks to the great efforts that have gone on before and I will put all my available energy into continuing to work with our Fellows and the College to progress the goals of RCVS Fellowship as a resource of independent knowledge for our professions, to upskill and always innovate, while looking to enrich public awareness and discussion.”
Nicky Paull MRCVS, who has held the position of Chair of the Credentials Panel for the Meritorious Contributions to Clinical Practice pathway for the past three years, was successfully re-elected.
Nicky will continue to be responsible for making assessments of applicants aiming to gain Fellowship through the Meritorious Contributions to Clinical Practice pathway.
She will co-ordinate and oversee a review of the applications by her fellow panel members, as well as chairing any required appropriate panel meetings.
On her appointment, Nicky said: “I look forward to the challenge of continuing to grow the diversity of the Fellowship and celebrate those who, by their contribution to the advancement of the profession by clinical or educational scholarship and leadership, have had a significant impact on clinical practice within the veterinary profession.”
Niall and Nicky will be formally instated into their roles at Fellowship Day, which is due to take place on Thursday 28 November at One Great George Street, London.
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/fellowship/
Mr Rushton was convicted of sexual assault after pleading guilty at Wood Green Crown Court in December 2022.
He was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, made subject to a restraining order and a 10-year sexual harm prevention order as well as being placed on the Sex Offenders Register for 10 years.
He was also ordered to pay £3,000 costs and a £140 victims’ surcharge.
Mr Rushton did not attend the RCVS hearing, where the facts of the charge were proven by the certificate of conviction and the judge’s sentencing remarks.
In considering whether the conviction rendered Mr Rushton unfit to practise veterinary medicine, the Committee considered that the case involved the sexual assault of a vulnerable woman who was also a professional colleague, and was a serious abuse of trust, reflected in the custodial sentence.
Dr Neil Slater MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “It was evident from the judge’s sentencing remarks that [the victim] had been seriously affected by the knowledge of what had occurred on that evening.
"That knowledge was bound, in itself, to be very distressing and according to the victim’s impact statement had a long- lasting impact on the victim’s self-esteem, resilience and relationship with others.
"The victim’s level of distress can only have been increased by the knowledge that the respondent had filmed and/or photographed his activity while she was unconscious and that the images were included on a memory stick which contained a number of other voyeuristic images.”
"The Committee was satisfied that the respondent’s behaviour had caused [the victim] significant psychological injury and carried with it a risk of causing such injury.
“The Committee was also satisfied that [the victim] was especially vulnerable because of the significant quantity of alcohol that she had consumed.
"In the circumstances that evolved, she was in the respondent’s care.
"The respondent abused the position of trust and responsibility that he occupied.
"He was a senior colleague, at a professional conference.
"Instead of taking appropriate steps to secure the welfare of [the victim], he used the position in which he found himself to engage in predatory sexual misconduct.
"Furthermore, his behaviour was opportunistic and, as the judge said, “clearly driven by [his] sexual desires."
Taking into account these factors, the Committee found that Dr Rushton was unfit to practise and next considered the sanction.
The Committee found no mitigating factors regarding the conviction but did take into account the fact there had been no previous regulatory findings against him.
In deciding the sanction, the Committee also noted that there was little evidence before them that Dr Rushton had shown serious insight into the impact of his offending.
Neil added: “In this context the Committee also noted that the respondent maintained a plea of not guilty until three days before a rearranged trial was due to take place, and subsequently advanced an account of what he said was his relationship with [the victim] which the judge found to be false.
“Taking all of these factors into account, the Committee is satisfied that removal from the register is the only proportionate outcome to this case.
"This sanction is necessary to declare and uphold appropriate standards of conduct for members of the veterinary profession and to maintain public confidence in the profession.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
Mr Fioletti was found guilty of the murder of Stephanie Hodgkinson at Bournemouth Crown Court in January, and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum 15 years.
The hearing for Dr Fioletti took place on Thursday 6 June, with the Committee deciding to proceed in his absence after Dr Fioletti said in correspondence that he did not want to attend the hearing nor be otherwise represented.
The Committee found the facts of the case proven by the certificate of conviction and went on to consider whether the conviction rendered Dr Fioletti unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
Aggravating factors in terms of fitness to practise included the fact that it was an offence involving violence and loss of life and the injuries caused by Dr Fioletti to Ms Hodgkinson.
The sentencing remarks, which were cited during the disciplinary hearing, also made clear the devastating impact that Dr Fioletti’s actions had on Ms Hodgkinson’s family, including her two young children.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee considers that, when consideration is given to the ferocity of the attack on Ms Hodgkinson and the number of stab wounds she suffered, when taken together with the finding by the sentencing judge, who presided over the trial, that the respondent “represent[ed] a significant danger to any female with whom you find yourself in a relationship”, members of the public would find it abhorrent for a veterinary surgeon to have acted in this way and would be concerned at the risk the respondent posed to some members of the public.
“This Committee considers that the offence of murder is so inherently deplorable and shocking that it must constitute conduct falling far short of that to be expected of a member of the profession; and is certainly liable to bring the profession into serious disrepute and undermine public confidence in the profession.”
The Committee then went on to consider the most appropriate and proportionate sanction for Dr Fioletti.
In terms of the aggravating factors in this case, Mr Morris said: “The misconduct in this case relates to a savage, sustained and ferocious attack with a weapon on a defenceless woman in her own home.
"His victim trusted him to be in her home.
"He knew that she was the mother of two young sons, of whom she had custody, and to whom he knew she was devoted.
"He would have known that the effect of his attack on her would have devastating consequences for her sons and her other close relatives – and it did.
"This conduct constitutes disgraceful conduct of the most egregious and reprehensible kind.
“The Committee also considers that the misconduct raises serious concerns about the reputation of the profession in the eyes of right-thinking members of the public.
"This was abusive and controlling conduct of the worst kind and conduct of which the respondent had been guilty of in past relationships, as the sentencing judge found.
"Such acts by their very nature run contrary to the very essence of the practice of the profession of veterinary surgery, which is intended to protect and enhance the welfare and well-being of animals and of work colleagues.”
In mitigation the Committee noted that Dr Fioletti had no previous criminal history and had a hitherto unblemished career as a veterinary surgeon.
The Committee found that only complete removal from the Register was appropriate in this case.
Paul added: “The Committee has reached the conclusion that the respondent’s behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon.
"The respondent’s behaviour was so serious that removal of professional status and the rights and privileges accorded to that status is considered to be the only means of protecting the wider public interest and of maintaining confidence in the profession.”
The Committee expressed its condolences to the family of Stephanie Hodgkinson for their incalculable loss.
The consultation is open to veterinary surgeons, nurses, students, and the public.
One of the main - and most controversial - proposals in the consultation, which was unveiled by RCVS President Sue Patterson at BVA Live last week, is that the elected councils would be replaced by an independent merit-and-skills appointment-based system.
Sue discussed the main benefits of an appointment-based system at BVA Live:
Other proposed changes include:
The good governance proposals are part of the College’s overall legislative reform agenda in which it is seeking to replace the 1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act with new and more modern, flexible and forward-looking legislation, which would expand the regulatory remit of the College to encompass veterinary practice premises and paraprofessionals, while empowering veterinary nurses and creating a new fitness to practise system.
Sue said: “The current governance structure of the RCVS is set by the VSA and updating our governance systems is a vital prerequisite to getting new primary legislation, as the outdated and out-of-step nature of our current arrangements will be clear to see.
“Governance may not be the most exciting topic, but it is the foundation on which all other aspects of the College’s work rests.
"As a professional regulator with animal health and welfare at our heart, the RCVS has a duty to ensure that our arrangements best serve the public on whose behalf we are entrusted to regulate and uphold veterinary standards, while still maintaining veterinary input in all our decision-making processes.
“We believe these good governance proposals help us meet this mission, ensuring that we are bringing our governance in line with regulatory norms, while still recognising our unique role as a dual regulator and royal college.
"The proposals would also help us get the best talent with the right skillsets and experience to serve on RCVS Council, VN Council and our committees, drawing on both laypeople and the broad sweep of the veterinary professions.
“We acknowledge that there has been some disquiet over the fact that, under these proposals, we would no longer be holding the annual elections to either RCVS Council or VN Council.
"However, we believe that an independent, fair and skills-based appointment process would be a superior way of selecting the membership of RCVS Council and VN Council than the elections which, unfortunately, the vast majority of the veterinary professions do not currently engage in, and which risk creating the impression that the RCVS is some sort of representative organisation.
“We look forward to hearing the considered views of the professions and public regarding our good governance proposals and will carefully review the feedback we receive.”
Belinda Andrews-Jones RVN, current Chair of VN Council, added: “In many ways VN Council is ahead of the curve in terms of governance reform with a smaller number of members and two independently-appointed veterinary nurse members – of which I am one – as well as appointed lay members.
“I can personally vouch for the robust nature of the application and independent appointment process for VN Council and how it took into account what I had to offer to the role in terms of my skills, my knowledge and my experience.
“I would like to thank my fellow members of VN Council, including my elected peers, for their positive engagement with the good governance proposals and their recognition that these reforms aren’t about reducing scrutiny of the College or the amount of challenge to its decisions, but about improving outcomes for the public, their animals and the professions at large.”
The good governance recommendations have been drawn up on the basis of the Law Commission’s 2014 Report ‘Regulation of Health and Social Care Professionals’, the recommendations from which were adopted by the UK government as being the ‘regulatory norm’.
The College says any future appointment processes for RCVS Council and VN Council would also be based on the Professional Standards Authority’s appointment principles of merit, fairness, transparency and openness and having a process that inspires confidence.
The deadline for completing the consultation is Monday 22 July 2024.
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/our-consultations/ensuring-good-governance/
The College will also be presenting the proposals at a Zoom webinar called being chaired by Sue between 7pm and 8pm tomorrow evening, Tuesday 11 June 2024: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/ensuring-good-governance-tickets-920243973497
Ms Mulvey faced a total of nine charges against her:
Ms Mulvey did not respond to the charges, was not present at the hearing and was not represented.
She told the College that she couldn't attend for health reasons, but did not then provide any medical evidence and did not apply for a remote hearing, which was offered.
She had appeared before the Disciplinary Committee twice previously, facing a number of similar charges.
In 2016/2017, Ms Mulvey admitted all charges she was faced with and was found guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The Committee then decided to postpone the sanction for a period of one year.
In 2019, Ms Mulvey appeared before the Committee for the resumed sanction hearing and faced further new charges relating to failures to provide clinical history, failing to communicate with clients, failing to respond to requests for information from the College concerning complaints made against her, continuing professional development and indemnity insurance.
Ms Mulvey admitted the new charges and that she was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, for which she was struck off for six months.
Taking into account the fact that this was not Ms Mulvey’s first time before the Committee, as well as new accompanying evidence, the Committee considered the facts of each subsection of each charge individually.
The Committee found all charges proved, apart from one subsection of charge 1.
The Committee then went on to decide if Ms Mulvey was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, noting that it was entitled to consider the facts on a cumulative basis.
In other words, whilst any one charge may not fall far below the relevant standard expected of a veterinary surgeon on a standalone basis, it may when considered in conjunction with other failings that have been found proved.
The Committee found a number of aggravating factors in the case, including actual injury to animals (including death and amputation), dishonesty, breach of trust, sustained behaviour, disregard of the role of the RCVS, lack of insight by the defendant and previous adverse findings.
There were no mitigating factors.
The Committee then went on to decide upon a sanction.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee found that Dr Mulvey has demonstrated a wilful disregard for the role of her regulator and the systems that regulate the profession which are designed to ensure animal welfare.
"She has failed to learn from, or respond to in any meaningful way, her previous appearances before her regulator and advice given.
"The instant charges found proved dated back to shortly after the earlier suspension had elapsed.
"The Committee further noted that, if a period of suspension were to be imposed, at the end of the suspension Dr Mulvey would be entitled to resume practice without any preconditions.
“This is a case involving serious malpractice.
"It was sustained over a period of time.
"It followed previous adverse findings for almost identical failures.
"From as long ago as 2013, Dr Mulvey was given ample opportunity and support to remedy the deficiencies in her practice, which she squandered.
"Dr Mulvey’s conduct had very serious consequences for animal welfare.
"She continued, and continues, to display a wilful disregard for her responsibilities as a veterinary surgeon under the Code of Professional Conduct.
"Dr Mulvey’s conduct was a gross departure from the conduct expected of a veterinary surgeon.
“Dr Mulvey’s disgraceful conduct is so serious that removal from the Register is the only means of protecting animals and the wider public interest which includes protection of the public, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, and the upholding of standards.”
Dr Mulvey has 28 days from being notified of her removal from the Register to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.
At the roundtable, Liz Barton MRCVS, Head of Communications at Vet.CT, spoke about the application of AI in clinical practice, including in preventative medicine, diagnostics, treatment and prognostics.
Liz highlighted how the use of AI tools in clinical practice for tasks such as pattern recognition had led to many unforeseen and unexpected benefits, for example by picking up things that humans may not.
Dr P-J Noble, Senior Lecturer in Small Animal Science at the University of Liverpool, explained how AI tools had proven useful in processing, assessing and annotating qualitative data gathered through the university's Small Animal Veterinary Surveillance Network (SAVSNET) once they were programmed to recognise certain patterns, saving lots of research time and costs.
Dr Chris Trace MRCVS, Head of Digital Learning at the University of Surrey, spoke about AI use in higher education and how it has already started to be used beneficially both as a teaching and learning aid, as well as for assessment and feedback.
In the afternoon session, groups of delegates were asked to discuss practical questions over AI use in the veterinary professions and how it might be regulated.
There were discussions on how to help vet and VN students make the most of AI in learning and assessment, responsible use of AI in clinical settings, the risks of not using AI, how veterinary professionals can work with animal owners and keepers to ensure the safe and productive use of AI, and whether AI-led devices should be regulated.
Lizzie said: “This was a really positive and exciting event that involved a heady mix of trepidation over the risks and implications of AI now and into the future, and optimism over the beneficial impact it could have for education, diagnosis, treatment and patient outcomes.
"The discussions have certainly given us at the College a lot of food for thought on how we can put in place guardrails and guidelines on the appropriate use of AI in the veterinary sector.
“This is an area of technology that is evolving so rapidly that it would not be effective for us to put in place specific guidance for the use of AI tools, but instead we will be looking at how we can regulate the use of AI in the round and ensure our principles are sufficiently future-proofed to keep up with the pace of change.
“Any regulation will start with first principles, such as transparency and honesty around the use of AI in veterinary practice, the minimisation of potential risks, and the continuing importance of professional accountability for decision-making, even where such decisions may have been heavily influenced by the use of AI tools and AI-generated data.”
The input gathered from the roundtable will now be considered by a range of RCVS committees over the coming months.
A full report of the event will be published this summer.
The roles were confirmed by Buckingham Palace this month as part of a recent review of royal patronages.
RCVS President Dr Sue Paterson FRCVS said: “We are delighted that His Majesty the King is our new Royal Patron, continuing his mother’s support for the veterinary professions.
“We know that His Majesty is a keen advocate for animal health and welfare, the environment and biodiversity, and so his interests align very much with ours in areas such as sustainability, tackling antimicrobial resistance, and in supporting veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses to best meet their professional standards.
British Veterinary Association President Dr. Anna Judson said: “We’re honoured to welcome His Majesty King Charles as our Patron.
"This ongoing royal commitment recognises the vital contribution vets make to animal welfare and their critical role in society, from taking care of the nation’s pets through to ensuring animal welfare in food production, public health and international trade.
"On behalf of our members, we’d like to thank His Majesty for his commitment to BVA, our profession and the work we do.”
Nebojsa Petrovic faced eight charges, although charge four was withdrawn at the start of the hearing.
At the outset of the hearing, Dr Petrovic admitted a number of allegations, including:
Charge 1 - that in November 2021, he falsely represented to the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) that blood samples he submitted in respect of four horses were from the same horses as the samples he submitted on 1 November 2021.
Charge 2 – that in November 2021, he told APHA’s Veterinary Head of Border Control that he had checked the microchips and/or passports of the four horses when he hadn’t done so;
Charge 3 – that in November 2021, he signed Export Health Certificates for the four horses, in which it was stated that blood samples taken from these horses on October 2021 had been submitted to the Veterinary Laboratories Agency laboratory, Weybridge, with a negative result for Leptospirosis when in fact those samples had tested positive;
Charge 5 – that he failed to send the APHA’s Centre for International Trade, within seven days of signing, certified copies of the export health certificates;
Charge 7 – that in January 2022, he told an APHA officer that he was satisfied that he had properly identified the horses for which you had submitted the two samples when he had not done so;
Charge 8c – that he risked undermining government procedures designed to promote animal health and international relations in relation to the charges he admitted; and
Charge 9 – that in February 2022, he failed to have in place any or any adequate Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII).
Dr Petrovic, who was at the time of all the allegations carrying his duties as an Official Veterinarian on behalf of the APHA, denied charge 6 – that in November 2021, he failed to take sufficient steps to prevent the four horses being exported to Serbia, when he had been informed that there were concerns and/or doubts about whether those horses had tested negative for Leptospirosis.
He also denied charge 8 – that in relation to the allegations relating to his submitting the blood samples to the Veterinary Laboratories Agency on 8 November 2021, certification of the Export Health Certificates on 16 November 2021 and his subsequent conversations with members of APHA staff regarding both sets of documentation he had acted in a misleading (Charge 8a) and/or dishonest (Charge 8b) way.
The Committee considered evidence presented by the College including hearing from APHA staff witnesses called by the College and also hearing from a witness and character evidence presented by Dr Petrovic. Dr Petrovic also gave evidence to the Committee.
It found most charges proven with the exception of Charge 6, and also found that Dr Petrovic had not acted dishonestly in submitting the blood samples or certifying the EHC’s as alleged in charges 1 and 3.
The Committee concluded that Dr Petrovic had acted in a dishonest and misleading way in his conversations with the APHA staff as detailed in charges 2 and 7.
The Committee then considered whether the individual proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, determining that, with the exception of charges 3 and 5, all proven charges amounted to disgraceful conduct.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “In the Committee’s judgement, the respondent’s position as an Official Veterinarian also meant that he had a responsibility to ensure that the trust which was delegated to him was not breached.
"In his role, the respondent was acting in a position of trust, as a representative of the government, and the Committee found that he had breached that trust…. It took these matters into account when determining that the respondent’s behaviour cumulatively amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
Regarding the sanction for Dr Petrovic, the Committee considered his request that it consider suspension, rather than removal, from the Register.
In terms of aggravating factors – the Committee found that Dr Petrovic had acted without integrity, recklessly and without regard for the APHA’s systems relating to the export of animals.
In mitigation, it took into account: the fact that no animal was harmed by his conduct, albeit there was risk of harm; his long and unblemished career in the UK since 1994; admissions he had made to the APHA and Disciplinary Committee at the first day of the hearing; had remediated his lack of professional indemnity insurance by putting in place a retrospective policy; the significant amount of time that had elapsed since the conduct; and six positive character references from experienced fellow veterinary surgeons who held him in high regard.
Paul Morris added: “The Committee took into account that the respondent had continued to work as a veterinary surgeon with no subsequent complaints and that he had a previous long and unblemished record and there was support by several positive character references.
"The Committee also took into consideration the pressures of Brexit and the pandemic which the respondent had faced at the time, but which were unlikely to occur again.
“The Committee had concluded that the respondent was unlikely to repeat similar behaviour or to pose a risk to animals, particularly because he was no longer involved in certifying animals for export.
"Furthermore his admissions to most of the matters it had found proved showed that he had some insight.
"The Committee was also satisfied that the respondent had a genuine concern for the welfare of animals and it noted that the Respondent did not require any further training to continue in practice as a veterinary surgeon.
“The Committee therefore concluded that a suspension from the Register was the proportionate sanction in this case taking into account the seriousness of the conduct it had found proved but also all of the mitigating factors.”
The Committee recommended that Dr Petrovic be suspended for six months to reflect the seriousness of the conduct and the damage it could do to public confidence in the profession, while meeting the public interest and sending a clear message of deterrence.