The RCVS has announced the candidates standing in the 2020 RCVS Council elections.

Eight veterinary surgeons have put themselves forward to compete for the three available places. They are:

• John Davies MRCVS
• Dr Melissa Donald MRCVS (incumbent)
• Dr Tom Lonsdale MRCVS
• Professor Stephen May FRCVS (incumbent)
• Dr Kate Richards MRCVS
• Peter Robinson MRCVS
• Dr Richard Stephenson MRCVS
• Dr Christopher (Kit) Sturgess FRCVS (incumbent)

The RCVS has uploaded each of the candidates’ biographies and election statements on to its website, at: www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote20.

The elections will start from Monday 16th March when the ballot papers and candidates’ manifestos will be posted and emailed to all members of the profession who are eligible to vote.

All votes, whether postal or online, must then be cast by 5pm on Friday 24 April 2020. 

As with previous years, the RCVS is also inviting members of the profession to get a better idea of why each candidate is standing by taking part in 'Quiz the candidates' and submitting a question which will then be put directly to the candidates.

Each candidate for both elections will be invited to choose two questions to answer from all those received, and produce a video recording of their answers.

Recordings will be published on the RCVS website and YouTube channel (www.youtube.com/rcvsvideos) on the week the election starts.

The College says only question per person is allowed, and any which it deems offensive, inappropriate, misleading, libellous or otherwise unlawful will not be distributed to the candidates. 

Vets should email their question to vetvote20@rcvs.org.uk or send it to the College’s Twitter account @theRCVS using the hashtag #vetvote20 by midday on Friday 28 February 2020.

COMMENT

With the veterinary profession facing two of the biggest regulatory changes seen in most people's lifetimes, namely changes to the rules over remote prescribing without performing a physical examination and a possible change to the standard of proof used in disciplinaries, there has never been a more important time to make sure that practising veterinary surgeons are properly represented on Council. Nor has there been a time I can remember when a protest vote would represent such a shocking waste. Don't forget, you don't need to use all your votes. Use them wisely.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed the Registrar to remove Luton-based veterinary surgeon, Rahul Chandulai Shah from the Register for repeated clinical failures. 

The Disciplinary Committee, chaired by Dr Martin Whiting, considered two charges against Mr Shah.

The first charge alleged that in June 2018 Mr Shah allowed a kitten to be anaesthetised for a castration without having first undertaken a clinical examination.

Then, having failed to locate a second testicle during the surgery, it was alleged that Mr Shah failed to contact the owner to inform her of this failure and to discuss the treatment options arising as a result, before ending his attempts at the castration.

The charge then alleged that Mr Shah failed to devise an adequate plan for the completion of the castration, failed to take adequate steps to ensure that the owner was fully informed of the details of the surgery, and failed to make adequate clinical notes in relation to the kitten.

The second charge alleged that, in relation to the conduct in charge one, Mr Shah failed to have adequate regard to previous advice and warnings from the RCVS about his conduct in relation to neutering surgery and related clinical note-keeping and communication with clients.

In particular, this related to a reprimand issued in September 2016 by the Disciplinary Committee following its finding of disgraceful conduct with regards to his discharge of a dog following castration in 2014, and advice issued to Mr Shah by letter of 21 March 2018 by the College’s Preliminary Investigation Committee with regards to circumstances surrounding canine spay surgery performed by him in 2016.

At the outset of the hearing Mr Shah denied all of the charges. 

Nevertheless, the Committee found the following charge one sub-charges proved: that Mr Shah allowed the kitten to be anaesthetised without having first undertaken a clinical examination of the kitten and/or ensuring that they had undergone a clinical examination by another veterinary surgeon; that Mr Shah failed to devise an adequate plan for the completion of the castration, that he failed to take adequate steps to ensure that the owner was fully informed post-operatively of the details of the said surgery; and that he failed to make adequate clinical notes in relation to the findings of his examination under anaesthesia, his surgical approach, post-operative communication with the owners and his plan for completion of the castration.

The Committee also found all of charge two proved.

The Committee then went on to consider whether or not, in relation to the proved charges, Mr Shah’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In considering the aggravating factors, the Committee took into account the risk of injury to an animal, the contravention of previous advice given by the College, lack of insight, and the previous adverse findings of the Disciplinary Committee and the Preliminary Investigation Committee.

With regards to mitigating factors, the Committee accepted that the conduct was not premeditated, that there was no financial gain and that, notwithstanding the contents of charge two, the first charge was a single and isolated incident.

Considering both the aggravating and mitigating factors, the Committee was satisfied that Mr Shah’s conduct fell far below the standard expected of a registered veterinary surgeon and consequently that it amounted to serious professional misconduct.

The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Mr Shah. The Committee first considered lesser sanctions, including postponement with undertakings and a reprimand and warning. Neither would be sufficient to protect animals and the wider public interest and uphold proper standards because Mr Shah had already been given a reprimand and warning in 2016, which appeared, to the Committee, to have had no effect.

Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Dr Whiting said: "It is clear to the Committee that in this case, the respondent has failed to demonstrate any insight into the seriousness of his misconduct.

"In this case, the Committee considers that there is evidence of a harmful deep-seated personal attitude problem so far as the respondent is concerned. His pervasive denial of wrongdoing and lack of insight, in spite of the findings of this Committee, is of grave concern.

"The respondent’s persistent abdication of personal responsibility and accountability for anything that went wrong, coupled with his sustained blaming of the nursing staff with whom he worked, displays an attitude which is fundamentally incompatible with being a member of the veterinary profession.

"The Committee cannot be confident that there is no significant risk of repeat behaviour in the event that suspension was found to be the appropriate sanction and that the respondent is fit to practise after any period of suspension. 

"This is particularly due to the fact that Mr Shah has failed to have adequate regard to previous advice and warnings from the RCVS, coupled with multiple previous adverse findings of the Disciplinary Committee and the Preliminary Investigation Committee. The Committee has reached this conclusion having regard to the seriousness of its findings in this hearing, and the previous advice and warning given to the respondent, none of which appears to have been recognised or heeded."

The Committee therefore concluded that the only sanction which reflects the seriousness of this case, in the light of the previous findings and advice given to the Mr Shah by the College, is to remove him from the Register.

The Committee’s full facts and findings can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.

The RCVS has announced that the Privy Council has approved a rise to the current annual renewal fees of £24 for UK-practising members, £12 for overseas-practising members and £4 for non-practising members.

The College says the increase is needed to fund a number of ambitious projects and make sure the it is fit for the future.

The approved fee rise will apply to the 2020-21 annual renewal fee, which is due to be paid by 31 March 2020.

Increases will also be applied for those registering on or after 1 April 2020, including the restoration fee for those applying to re-join the Register.

Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, said: "While we appreciate that asking people for more money is never going to be popular, I would like to reassure the profession that the fee rise is both a necessary piece of financial future-proofing and will also help fund current projects and future initiatives stemming from our new Strategic Plan.

"Many of our existing projects such as the RCVS Leadership programme, the ViVet innovation project, the Fellowship and the Mind Matters mental health initiative, have an increasing workload, often due to popular demand, which requires additional resources – including staffing – to meet those needs. There is also increasing demand on some of our core regulatory functions such as our concerns investigation and disciplinary processes, including the Veterinary Client Mediation Service (VCMS), and our Education Department which is responsible for ensuring standards in an increasing number of educational institutions both domestically and internationally.

"Furthermore, there is lots of additional work on the horizon, much of which relates to improving and enhancing aspects of the profession and stems from our newly approved Strategic Plan, which will be published soon. For example, RCVS Council has just agreed an ambitious overhaul of the Professional Development Phase to help graduates better transition to life in practice; we are carrying out an increasing amount of work on understanding the barriers to diversity and inclusion in the veterinary profession: and, we are looking to relocate the College in order to be better able to accommodate the increasing number of staff and functions the work we do requires.

"In terms of future-proofing, we also need to make sure we have sufficient financial security for a potential decrease in the number of veterinary surgeons currently registered with us, as well as the number of veterinary surgeons joining the Register on an annual basis, that may arise when the UK fully leaves the EU at the end of the transition period in December 2020."

The current levels of RCVS fees are able to view at: www.rcvs.org.uk/how-we-work/fees/, which will be updated with the new fees shortly.

The RCVS is to hold three webinars looking at maximising the potential of veterinary nurses and recognising the value of their work.

Part of the VN Futures project, the lunchtime webinars will be delivered between February and June 2020 via the Webinar Vet, and the College is encouraging all veterinary surgeons, nurses, practice managers and owners to attend, as it says the webinars will benefit the whole practice team.

All three webinars take place at 12.30pm and last one hour. They are as follows: 

• Tuesday 4 February 2020 – ‘Maximising the potential of the veterinary nurse’ presented by Louise Northway RVN, BVNA Council member and recipient of the RCVS Inspiration Award. The webinar will give an overview of the role of veterinary nurses under Schedule 3 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, how VNs can develop their role in practice and take on extra responsibilities and how VNs can approach these conversations in practice through the creation of learning and development plans. This webinar will illustrate how fully utilising the nursing team not only hugely boosts the morale of the work force, but also enhances patient care and increases the efficiency of the business. 

• Tuesday 10 March 2020 – ‘Veterinary nurses’ time is valuable: How and why to charge for it’ presented by Stephanie Writer-Davies MRCVS, Career Progression Working Group member, and Jane Davidson RVN, VN Council member and regular blogger on veterinary nursing issues. This webinar will provide examples and case studies of how veterinary nurses contribute to practice finances, how practice pricing structures can be developed so that the financial value of veterinary nurses’ time and effort can be better highlighted, and how veterinary nurses can demonstrate their value to clients.

• Tuesday 23 June 2020 – ‘Lead or Head RVN: What’s in a name?’ presented by Gillian Page RVN, President of the Veterinary Management Group. This webinar will look at the role of the traditional Head RVN and how development of ‘Lead RVNs’ in different areas of practice can help to allow for growth of other talented team members and provide increased and shared responsibility and progression. This webinar will explore how this enhances practice efficiency alongside development of team members, thus increasing job satisfaction and, ultimately, retention.

Racheal Marshall, Chair of RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council and the VN Futures Board, said: "We hope that veterinary nurses will engage with these webinars in order to gain some inspiration about how they can truly show their value to their team, their clients and the wider public.

"The VN Futures research clearly demonstrated that there was a desire from the veterinary nursing profession to find ways in which VNs could gain greater recognition for the work they do and progress in their careers. These webinars, and our talented presenters, will provide many practical examples and case studies on how this can be done, help build confidence and highlight opportunities for further learning and development."

To sign up to the free webinars, visit: https://www.thewebinarvet.com/sponsors/VN%20Futures.  

A survey commissioned by the RCVS has found that a significant number of pet owners think veterinary surgeons offer poor or very poor value for money, suggesting more work needs to be done to communicate the value of veterinary services.

The survey was conducted by Mo Gannon & Associates, which asked 2,000 UK adults about their satisfaction with the service they and their animals received from veterinary surgeons, levels of trust in the profession, and whether the service provided by vets represents value for money.

32% of the respondents felt that veterinary surgeons represented excellent (8%) or good (24%) value for money. 38% thought that veterinary fees are fair. However, 29% thought that veterinary surgeons and their services provided poor (21%) or very poor (8%) value for money. The results were very similar to the last time the survey was conducted, in 2015.

Nevertheless, veterinary surgeons continue to enjoy very high levels of trust amongst the public. 94% said they either completely trust (34%) or generally trust (60%) vets. This put veterinary surgeons in third place amongst the most trusted professions, below opticians and pharmacists but above GPs and and dentists. 

Satisfaction with the profession was also high. 80% said they were either very satisfied (39%) or satisfied (41%), putting vets in fourth place below opticians, pharmacists and dentists, but above general practitioners and accountants.

RCVS President Dr Niall Connell, pictured right (would you trust this man?) said: "These results clearly demonstrate that there is a great deal of good will towards the veterinary profession and the work they do in treating the nation’s animals and serving their communities. The basis of all good relationships is trust, and it is fantastic to see that our clients continue overwhelmingly to trust our knowledge and expertise and remain very happy with the service we provide them.

"The picture on value for money is clearly a bit more mixed, although clearly 70% of the respondents recognise that we at least charge fair fees in terms of our time and expertise. There is, of course, always more work that we can do in order to help the public understand veterinary costs and fees and promote the value of veterinary care, as demonstrated by last year’s joint Pets Need Vets social media campaign with BVA, in which we highlighted the benefits to pet owners of being registered with a vet."

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded one veterinary surgeon and suspended another for four months, following a joint hearing regarding their professional conduct while they were in practice in Slough, Berkshire in August 2016.

The Disciplinary Committee considered a number of charges against Javier Salas Navarro MRCVS and Roman Kristin over 35 days.

The charges against Dr Navarro concerned his treatment of a kitten named Marnie. They included: 

• In August 2016, failing to read the anaesthesia consent form in relation to a surgical spay he performed;

• When Marnie was readmitted for surgery, failing to read the anaesthesia consent form, failing to undertake adequate assessment of Marnie’s condition; performing surgery without adequately considering her condition; subjecting Marnie to anaesthesia without recognising the seriousness of her illness; failing to obtain informed consent from the owners; administering medication which was contra-indicated; and failure to make an adequate record of his involvement in Marnie’s care.

The charges against Dr Kristin also related to his treatment of Marnie. They included:  

• In August 2016, failing to undertake an adequate assessment of her condition; failure to recognise and record the fact that Marnie could not pass urine; failure to refer or offer her for specialist treatment; and failure to ensure Marnie received care and treatment overnight. 

• When admitting Marnie for surgery, that he made a number of clinical mistakes including failure to gain informed consent; and failure to recognise the seriousness of her illness;

• that there were a number of failings in relation to Marnie’s care, including failure to arrange adequate overnight care, failure to monitor and record her condition, and failure to gain informed consent for the overnight care.

• that he failed to advise Marnie’s owners that he suspected her uterers had been ligated during the spay, failed to advise Marnie’s owners that she required specialist veterinary treatment; and advised that Marnie undergo further surgery at the practice in spite of this meaning her having to undergo further anaesthesia in a week and with poor chances of survival;

• that the above conduct was misleading and dishonest.

The Disciplinary Committee found a number of the facts in the charges against both Dr Navarro and Dr Kristin proven (the full details can be found in the documentation at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary). 

The Committee found that Dr Navarro breached a number of aspects of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons including: making animal health and welfare the first consideration when attending to animals; the provision of appropriate and adequate veterinary care; responsible prescription, supply and administration of medicines; communication with professional colleagues to ensure the health and welfare of the animal; being open and honest with clients and respecting their needs and requirements; effective communication with clients; keeping clear and accurate clinical records; and working with the veterinary team to coordinate the care of animals. 

Of the proven charges, the Committee found that his initial failure to read Marnie’s anaesthesia consent form on 5 August did not amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, but that the repetition of this failure on 9 August did amount to disgraceful conduct. It also found that Dr Navarro’s failure to undertake adequate assessment and perform surgery without this assessment amounted to serious professional misconduct. Furthermore, the Committee found that subjecting Marnie to anaesthesia in spite of her being unwell, failure to obtain informed consent and failure to keep adequate records also amounted to serious professional misconduct. 

For Dr Kristin, in summary, the Committee found not proven the allegation that he had failed to respond on 5 August 2016 to concerns from Marnie’s owners about her condition while she was recovering from a surgical spay and also all the allegations relating to Dr Kristin’s admission of Marnie to the practice on 9 August on the basis that it was not satisfied so as to be sure that Dr Kristin had been the veterinary surgeon who admitted Marnie on that day. 

The Committee found proven the remaining charges and found he breached the following parts of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons: making animal health and welfare the first consideration when attending to animals; keeping within area of competence and referring responsibly; providing appropriate and adequate veterinary care; responsible prescribing, supply and administration of medicines; communication with colleagues to ensure the health and welfare of the animal; being open and honest with clients and respecting their needs and requirements; communicating effectively with clients and obtaining informed consent; keeping clear and accurate clinical records; and working with the veterinary team to coordinate the care of animals.

Of the proven charges, the Committee determined that his failure to adequately assess Marnie’s health, to obtain a clinical history, to undertake blood tests and recognise that she was seriously ill, amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect and led to “Marnie’s underlying condition going undetected and undoubtedly contributed to her eventual death two days later”. 

The Committee also found that Dr Kristin’s decision to hospitalise Marnie without adequate overnight care, place her on IV fluids without monitoring the treatment or her condition, and failure to obtain adequate informed consent – among other things – amounted disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "As a direct result of Dr Kristin’s acts and omissions, Marnie was left alone overnight on fluids when those fluids had nowhere to go. Had he done his job properly he would have known that and Marnie could have avoided the prolonged suffering caused by the chosen course of treatment that did not address the underlying condition. Every element of Dr Kristin’s behaviour was catastrophic for Marnie, and yet he took no personal responsibility for her welfare and just went home.” 

Following its findings on disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, the Committee then went on to consider its sanction for both Dr Navarro and Dr Kristin.

In respect of Dr Navarro, the Committee considered the mitigating factors including previous good character, admissions to some of the facts of the case from the outset; genuine insight and remorse into the seriousness of the actions; his youth and inexperience; and relevant and good-quality testimonials from colleagues. The Committee noted that the testimonials were universally positive and demonstrated that Dr Navarro had reflected on his conduct, had become more mature and confident in his practice and made efforts to rectify the areas in which he had fallen below standards. 

Stuart Drummond said: “Although the consequences for Marnie and her owners were clearly devastating, the Committee considered that Dr Navarro’s part in her demise has to be seen in the context of all the evidence. In light of the extensive mitigation, including significant evidence of insight and remediation, the Committee was able to conclude that Dr Navarro did not represent a future risk to animals or the public. In such circumstances, the Committee considered that it was not necessary to restrict Dr Navarro’s registration and that a reprimand was the appropriate and proportionate sanction in his case.”

In relation to Dr Kristin, the Committee took into account positive character evidence from Mr Karel Daniel, a semi-retired veterinary surgeon and Vice-President of the Czech Republic Veterinary Chamber, a similar body to the RCVS in that country, as well as other testimonials on his behalf. In mitigation, the Committee considered Dr Kristin’s previously unblemished career, the fact that it was a single case involving a single animal; some development of insight into his conduct; no evidence of repetition; expressions of remorse; the impact of a family bereavement during the course of proceedings; and his financial position.

However, the Committee also took into account aggravating factors including a lack of candour from Dr Kristin when he was giving evidence, demonstrated by a tendency to blame others rather than take responsibility, as well as his recklessness in suggesting a third operation on Marnie that was not in her interests, rather than referring her into specialist care.

The final decision of the Committee on the sanction for Dr Kristin was that, given the seriousness of the misconduct, it was satisfied that this warranted a six-month suspension period. However, given the mitigating factors, the Committee decided that four months was appropriate and proportionate. 

Commenting on the sanction Stuart Drummond said: “The Committee determined that it was important a clear message be sent that this sort of behaviour is wholly inappropriate and not to be tolerated. It brings discredit upon the respondent and discredit upon the profession and, most importantly, caused harm to Marnie and great distress to her owners.

"The Committee did consider whether to remove Dr Kristin from the Register. However, in light of the mitigation in this case, the fact that this was a single case in an otherwise unblemished career, together with the unlikelihood he would repeat his disgraceful conduct, the Committee decided that, in all the circumstances, to remove him from the Register would be disproportionate.

"The Committee therefore decided to order that the Registrar suspend Dr Kristin’s registration…. The Committee was satisfied that a period of four months was appropriate and proportionate in all the circumstances."

The full facts and findings from the case can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary 

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded a veterinary surgeon who'd fallen victim to a corrupt system and consequently bribed a professor at the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Agronomic Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Bucharest.

Andreea Maria Bacaintan was convicted by the Bucharest Court of Law in October 2017 of bribing a professor during her final year at university in order to pass an examination, a charge to which she had pleaded guilty. 

Miss Bacaintan was fined and sentenced to a period of one year and four months' imprisonment, suspended for two years, with requirements for supervision and unpaid community service work. The case against Miss Bacaintan was that this conviction renders her unfit to practise veterinary surgery.

However, the Committee also heard and accepted that Miss Bacaintan had been the victim of a dishonest scheme perpetrated by members of staff at the University to extort money from students before they would let them pass the exam.

At the outset of the hearing the respondent admitted the facts as contained in the charge and that her conviction rendered her unfit to practise veterinary surgery. However, notwithstanding Miss Bacaintan’s acceptance that she was unfit, the issue of whether or not she was fit to practice remained one for the Committee’s judgement.

The Committee considered whether or not Miss Bacaintan’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct. In coming to its decision, the Committee took into account the submissions it had heard from Nicole Curtis, acting for the College, and from Miss Bacaintan, who represented herself.

Ms Curtis submitted that the nature and circumstances of the offence, which involved an element of dishonesty and which led to the conviction, were such as to render Miss Bacaintan unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon in the UK. Miss Bacaintan’s conduct was also liable to have a seriously detrimental effect on the reputation of the profession, as it undermined the examination system.

The Committee also considered the mitigating factors associated with the conviction, namely that this was a single, isolated incident and that Miss Bacaintan was clearly the victim of a dishonest scheme perpetrated by staff at the University.

Considering both the aggravating and mitigating factors, the Committee was satisfied that Miss Bacaintan’s conduct fell far below the standard expected of a Registered Veterinary Surgeon.

The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Miss Bacaintan. In doing so it took into account some of the written testimonials submitted on her behalf. The Committee was satisfied that Miss Bacaintan understood the magnitude of what she had done and was highly unlikely to repeat her dishonest behaviour.

Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Ian Green said: "This was a truly exceptional case where, whilst she had been dishonest, which the Committee in no way condoned, she had felt compelled to act in this way. The Committee was persuaded that Miss Bacaintan had herself been the victim of a corrupt system and had acted out of desperation in the final stages of her degree and with the genuine fear that if she did not “play the game” she would not graduate, thereby throwing away six years of hard work.

"It was notable that she did not succumb to the corrupt scheme until the third time of trying to pass this exam. It was clear from the evidence that she was not alone in paying up to try and pass this exam and that at least 30 and possibly many more students had done the same thing."

In such circumstances and with the significant mitigation, the Committee decided that the appropriate and proportionate sanction was to reprimand Miss Bacaintan and to warn her about her future conduct.

Based on the reported facts, what I'd like to know is why the DC even reprimanded a veterinary surgeon who was clearly being extorted herself, and what action was taken against the University staff?

Discuss here.

The Committee’s full facts and findings can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

The RCVS has announced that the Disciplinary Committee (DC) and the Preliminary Investigation Committee (PIC) have appointed Ian Arundale and Dr Bradley Viner as their new Chairs, respectively.

Ian Arundale (pictured right) was appointed as the new Chair of the DC following an application process from within existing Disciplinary Committee members, with the final interview panel consisting of Amanda Boag (President at the time), Ian Green (current DC Chair) and Miran Uddin (an independent barrister who works in regulatory law). Ian begins his role as chair in late October.

Ian is Deputy Chief Constable of Cleveland Police in the north east of England and was a police officer for 32 years serving in South Wales, West Mercia and Dyfed-Powys Police Forces. He currently provides expert witness services to inquests, courts and public inquiries. Ian has worked internationally and has assisted police forces and organisations in the USA, India, the Far East and New Zealand. In addition to his work with the RCVS, Ian is also the Chairperson of the Audit Committee for the City of Cardiff Council and is a board member of the International Law Enforcement Forum (ILEF).

Ian said: "I am pleased to have been selected as DC Chair and am looking forward to chairing the committee. The role of the DC is crucial to ensuring the RCVS protects and upholds the high standards of the UK veterinary professions, and I am humbled to be in a position to support this important function."

Dr Martin Whiting has been appointed as the new Vice Chair for the DC. Dr Whiting qualified as a veterinary surgeon from the Royal Veterinary College (RVC) in 2006. Following a few years in practice, he returned to academia to complete a Masters in Medical Law and Ethics and a PhD in the public interest in veterinary professional regulation. Martin was appointed as Lecturer in Veterinary Ethics and Law at the RVC in 2013 and became an RCVS and European Specialist in Animal Welfare, Ethics and Law. In 2017, Martin moved to the Home Office to work with the Animals in Science Committee and is currently the Head of Operations for the Animals in Science Regulation Unit.

Dr Bradley Viner has been appointed as the new Chair of the RCVS PIC and began his role on 1 July 2019.

Bradley was appointed through an independent selection process led by an external HR consultancy, with RCVS Council ratifying the final appointments. Bradley replaces Andrew Ash, who chaired the PIC from July 2015 up until Bradley’s appointment.

Bradley established his own small animal practice in Pinner, Middlesex, which then grew to a group of five practices in north-west London. In 2017 he sold his practices to the Linnaeus Group and now works for them as Group Clinical Quality Lead across all their sites. He was made a Fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons in 2017 for Meritorious Contributions to Clinical Practice. Bradley was an elected member of RCVS Council between 2005 and 2017, including four years as RCVS Treasurer and one year as RCVS President in 2015-16.

Bradley said: "I was delighted to have been selected as Chair of this Statutory Committee as I feel it is one of the most important interfaces between the College, the profession and the public. It has a vital role to play in protecting animal welfare and the reputation of the profession, but I am well aware that fear of disciplinary proceedings can be very stressful to those involved. I undertake to continually strive to work to find a balance that ensures the Committee maintains a well-regulated profession acting in the public interest but also makes every effort to avoid causing unnecessary stress on members that are subject to its proceedings."

More information about the RCVS concerns investigation and disciplinary processes can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns. 

The RCVS has announced two changes to its CPD policy as it switches from the rolling three year requirement to the annual one, starting in 2020.

The first is that the College will allow veterinary surgeons and nurses to carry over some of the CPD hours they have accrued in 2019 into 2020, to smoothen the transition to an annual hourly requirement.

Vets will be allowed to carry over 25 hours and VNs 10 hours of accumulated CPD from 2019 through to 2020.

This will apply once, in 2020 only, and is only applicable to vets and VNs who have been CPD-compliant from 2017 to 2019 and have a surplus number of hours to carry over.

Secondly, the College is going to allow vets and VNs to take a six-month 'CPD pause' for planned periods away from work, such as parental leave, and exceptional circumstances, such as serious ill health or unforeseen changes to family responsibilities, without the need to make up the hours when they return to work. This will reduce the burden on vets and VNs returning to work after a break.

RCVS Director of Education, Dr Linda Prescott-Clements said: "We hope that these changes to the CPD policy will support vets and VNs to make the transition to an annual hourly requirement.

"We received a sample of feedback from some members of the veterinary professions regarding the move to annual hourly CPD requirements and these additions have been introduced support members during this transition and to mitigate some of the concerns raised."

For more information about the CPD requirement for both vets and vet nurses, what activities might count as CPD, how to record your CPD and a series of frequently asked questions about CPD please visit our dedicated page: www.rcvs.org.uk/cpd.

The RCVS is now accepting nominations for its 2020 Honours & Awards, celebrating the achievements of veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and laypeople who are doing extraordinary work for the benefit of animal health and welfare, the veterinary professions and public health.

The College is seeking nominations this year for all six of its awards, all of which will be presented to the successful nominees at Royal College Day 2020, which will take place at 1 Great George Street in July 2020. These awards are:

• The Queen’s Medal: the highest honour that can be bestowed upon a veterinary surgeon for a highly distinguished career with sustained and outstanding achievements throughout.

• The Veterinary Nursing Golden Jubilee Award: for veterinary nurses who have had a sustained and distinguished career, who can demonstrate a leadership role within the profession and who can act as an ambassador for the value of veterinary nurses and their work.

• RCVS International Award: for vets, vet nurses or laypeople who work internationally in making an outstanding contribution to, for example, raising veterinary standards, veterinary education and improving animal health and welfare.

• RCVS Impact Award: for vets or vet nurses who have undertaken a project or initiative that has a significant impact on the profession at large, animal health or welfare, or public health. Such impact could have been made through any field of veterinary endeavour, including clinical practice, research, education or veterinary politics.

• RCVS Inspiration Award: for vets or vet nurses at any stage of their career who have demonstrated the ability to inspire and enthuse others consistently throughout. It is open to those who have inspired and motivated individuals anywhere within the profession and recognises those who have gone ‘above and beyond’ what may normally be expected from a professional colleague.

• Honorary Associateship: conferred on a small number of laypeople each year, in recognition of their special contribution to the veterinary sphere. It recognises the full range of individuals who contribute to the veterinary and animal health sector including scientists, lecturers, journalists, charity-workers, farriers, farmers and those involved in the commercial field.

Niall Connell, RCVS President for 2019-20, said: "2019 was particularly fruitful in terms of the number of nominations that we received for some of these awards, including the Queen’s Medal and the Impact and Inspiration Awards. In fact, those of us who had to compile the shortlist really struggled because of the sheer quality of the nominations we received and the people who were nominated.

"We hope that this will be repeated this year, and I would ask the profession to give some extra thought to making a nomination for Honorary Associateship, an award which is conferred on laypeople who are going above-and-beyond for animal welfare and the veterinary professions.

"In my veterinary career I have met many of these people: the biochemistry lecturers at vet school who gave me a passion for the science behind clinical veterinary medicine; the receptionists who were experts at talking to clients with empathy and kindness, often during distressing situations; and the volunteers who give up their precious free time to help with the smooth running of our PDSA hospital.

"I would urge everyone to have a think about who might be suitable for any of these awards, to find out more about making a nomination on the RCVS website."

To make a nomination, visit www.rcvs.org.uk/honours and click on the link for the specific award.

Applications can be made either through an online application form or by downloading a PDF application form and emailing or posting it to the RCVS.

The deadline for nominations is Friday 10 January 2020. 

For an informal talk about the awards and how to make a nomination you can contact Susie Tomlin, Executive Secretary, on s.tomlin@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0761.

Photo: Dr Abdul-Jalil Mohammadzai, one of the recipients of the 2019 RCVS International Award, with the then RCVS President Amanda Boag

York-based Dr Michael Richard Jones has been suspended by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for two months, for making dishonest entries in horse passports and subsequently making dishonest entries in the same horses’ clinical records.

The Disciplinary Committee heard three charges against Dr Jones.

The first and second charges were that, in March 2018, Dr Jones made signed entries in the passports and made corresponding entries in clinical records of four horses indicating that he had administered an influenza vaccination booster to each horse on 15 March 2018 and in relation to another horse a tetanus booster, when in fact he had administered the vaccination boosters on 21 March 2018, and that his conduct was misleading, dishonest and undermined the integrity of a vaccination process designed to promote animal welfare.

The third charge was that, on or around 21 March 2018, Dr Jones failed to make any entries in the clinical records for a horse in relation to an examination on 21 March 2018.

At the outset of the hearing Dr Jones admitted the facts in the first and second charges, and accepted that his actions were misleading, dishonest and that they undermined the integrity of a vaccination process. However, he disputed certain aspects of the written statements of the College’s witnesses. In particular he wanted his conduct to be taken in the context of the pressures that he was working under on that day, primarily that he was in a stressed state having had to euthanase a valuable stallion at the conclusion of his previous client appointment.

Dr Jones did not admit the third charge, explaining that he did not remember examining the horse on 21 March 2018 as alleged.

Based on Dr Jones' own admissions, the Committee found the first and second charges proven. 

Regarding the third charge, the Committee heard evidence from the horse’s owner who said they were present during the examination taking place and the Committee was satisfied that the respondent did examine the horse on 21 March 2018 and that he had a duty to make a brief clinical note on the examination. As Dr Jones admitted that he made no such note, the Committee found the charge to have been proven to the requisite standard.

Having found the charges proven, the Committee then went on to consider whether or not Dr Jones’ proven conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct. The Committee, having considered the aggravating and mitigating factors, found that Dr Jones’ conduct as found proved in relation to both charges one and two, did constitute serious professional misconduct.

However, with regards to charge three, the Committee accepted that the respondent simply forgot that he had examined the horse and, therefore, the Committee was not satisfied that the failure to compile a record entry covering the horse’s examination constituted serious professional misconduct.

The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Dr Jones in relation to the facts found proven in charges one and two. In doing so it took into account the 78 written testimonials and 4 character witnesses called on behalf of Dr Jones.

Ian Green, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: "The Committee’s decision on sanction has been based on an acceptance that the respondent’s conduct on this occasion was out-of-character, as the evidence of his character witnesses and the contents of the letters submitted in his support by his clients and other veterinary colleagues assert. The Committee also accepts that the respondent self-reported himself to his employer and to the College and has made a full and frank admission of his wrongdoing.

"Consideration was given to whether the sanction of a reprimand and/or warning as to future conduct would adequately reflect the gravity of the misconduct, however, after careful reflection it was concluded that such a sanction could not be justified. The reason is that acts of falsification involve acts of dishonesty by a professional person acting in a professional capacity, and the gravity of the matter arises not simply from the dishonesty but also from the possible consequences of the false certification. It should be clearly understood by members of the veterinary profession that, in appropriate false certification cases, the sanction of removal from the Register is one which may well be imposed."

The Committee therefore decided that suspending Dr Jones from the Register for two months would be the most appropriate sanction.

Midlands-based Dr Lynn Jo Ann Davies MRCVS has been reprimanded and warned by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for serious professional misconduct involving drink driving convictions and being under the influence of alcohol whilst on duty as a veterinary surgeon.

The committee heard five charges against Dr Davies at a resumed hearing of an inquiry which was originally adjourned in January and then July 2018. The decision was made, at both the 2018 hearings, to postpone the final decision on the sanction.

The first two charges against Dr Davies related to convictions for drink driving in March 2014 and October 2015 for which she received driving bans of 17 and 45 months.

The third charge related to her breaching a number of undertakings she had entered into as part of the College’s Health Protocol, including her consuming alcohol on four occasions between May 2015 and January 2016 and missing a pre-arranged appointment with a consultant psychiatrist appointed.

The fourth and fifth charges related to being under the influence of alcohol on three occasions while she was on duty as a veterinary surgeon in December 2016 which was also in breach of her undertakings under the Health Protocol.

At Dr Davies' first Disciplinary Committee hearing in January 2018, she admitted all five charges against her and also accepted that her conduct was disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

The Committee accepted her admissions and found, with the exception of one allegation, that her conduct was disgraceful in a professional respect.

At the conclusion of its hearing on 23 January 2018 the Committee decided to postpone its decision regarding sanction for six months on the basis of Dr Davies’ entering into undertakings, including not to practise veterinary surgery and to remain abstinent from alcohol during the period of postponement and to undergo blood and hair tests for alcohol consumption every two months.

At the resumed hearing on 30 July 2018, Dr Davies’ Counsel submitted on her behalf that she wished to return to practise and the Committee reviewed evidence that she provided to demonstrate she had complied with her undertakings.

However, the Committee retained concerns about Dr Davies' return to practise and therefore required her to identify a veterinary surgeon who would agree to act as her mentor, noting that the mentor would have to be acceptable to the College as someone suitable to act in that capacity.

The Committee also required the continuation of the requirements for abstinence from alcohol and the programme of blood and hair testing.

A further requirement of the Committee was that Dr Davies should make a disclosure to any new employer of her appearances before the Committee in January 2018 and in July 2018 and of the decisions it made.

The final requirement of the Committee was that the respondent should not accept a ‘sole charge position’ at any time during her employment during this next period of postponement of sanction. The Committee then directed that the hearing be postponed for a further 12 months.

The Disciplinary Committee resumed its inquiry on 7th August 2019, when Dr Davies submitted documentary proof and medical records to demonstrate she had complied with all her undertakings given at the last hearing. The Committee also heard from Dr Davies’ appointed veterinary mentor who provided a statement that concluded that she no longer needed monitoring or supervision.

The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Dr Davies.

Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The view of the Committee is that the respondent has to date overcome her addiction to alcohol and, given that her competence as a practising veterinary surgeon is not disputed, that she should therefore be permitted to return to her chosen profession. However, in the judgment of this Committee the seriousness of the offences to which the Respondent has pleaded guilty means that a sanction of “No Further Action” cannot be justified."

The Committee therefore decided that the most proportionate sanction was for Dr Davies to be reprimanded as to the conduct she admitted at previous hearings and that she be warned as to her future conduct.

Ian added: "The respondent must understand that she has been given an opportunity to prove that, for the remainder of her time in practice, she can meet the high standards expected of all registered veterinary surgeons from both other practitioners and from members of the public who entrust the care and treatment of their animals to members of this profession."

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended Leicester-based Jatinder Dhami MRCVS for four months after he was found guilty of kicking and stamping on a dog that had bitten him.

The Disciplinary Committee heard three charges against Dr Dhami, relating to events which took place while he was in practice at Vets4Pets in Market Harborough, Leicestershire.

The first charge against him was that, in November 2017, he used excessive force in kicking and stamping on a Staffordshire Bull Terrier he was treating.

The second charge was that, between in October and November 2017, he failed to pay adequate regard to the welfare of a Jack Russell in his care by leaving it in a sink without adequate reason and for an excessive period of time.

The third charge was that, between April and March 2018, he failed to have adequate regard to the welfare of a six-to-eight week old kitten, including providing bedding and warmth.

At the outset of the hearing Dr Dhami admitted to lightly kicking the dog, but denied forcefully kicking it and also denied that he had stamped on the dog, as well as denying the other two charges against him.

In considering the circumstances of the first charge, the Committee heard evidence from two of Dr Dhami’s colleagues stating that the dog had bitten him whilst he was cleaning its ears and, following this, he took the dog out of the consulting room, closed the door and whilst holding the dog’s lead then proceeded to kick her twice, knocking her along the floor both times, and then finally stamp on her when she was prone.

Dr Dhami disputed his colleagues' version of events and stated that he had only delivered two light kicks to the dog’s rump, that neither of these had made her fall to the floor and also denied in categorical terms that he stamped on the animal. Furthermore, he also denied the second and third charges against him.

In considering the evidence as to whether Dr Dhami kicked and stamped on the dog, the Disciplinary Committee found the evidence of his two colleagues to be credible and reliable, and so found all aspects of the charge proven.

Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "For the avoidance of doubt, the Committee finds that the admitted kicks administered to [the animal] by the respondent were of significant force. The Committee rejects the respondent’s assertion that the admitted kicks amounted to mere taps on the backside. The Committee finds that the ‘stamping’ was also of significant force."

In regards to the second and third charges, the Committee was not satisfied that the charges had been proven by the evidence it heard and therefore dismissed them both. 

Having found all parts of the first charge proven, the Committee then went on to consider whether or not Dr Dhami’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct, something that Dr Dhami, following the Committee’s decision on the facts, through his counsel, had admitted.

The Committee identified a number of aggravating factors, including the real risk of physical harm to the animal and the deliberate nature Dr Dhami’s conduct against the animal, committed in anger.

In mitigation, the Committee accepted that this was an isolated incident and that Dr Dhami had been bitten and was in pain. The Committee therefore found that Dr Dhami’s admission of serious professional misconduct was ‘properly and prudently made’. 

The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Dr Dhami. In doing so it took into account some of the written testimonials and character witnesses called on behalf of Dr Dhami. The Committee was also satisfied that Dr Dhami had had a hitherto long and unblemished career, that he had apologised to colleagues immediately after the incident and that, since the events, he had continued to work as a veterinary surgeon without any problems. 

In relation to insight about the event, the Committee accepted Dr Dhami had provided some evidence of reflection, in that he admitted kicking the dog and accepted that this conduct, once found proven, amounted to serious professional misconduct. 

The Committee decided that suspending Dr Dhami from the Register for four months would be the most proportionate sanction.

Ian Green concluded: "Having regard to all the matters urged by way of mitigation, and having taken into account all the evidence that it has heard, the Committee is satisfied that a period of suspension is sufficient in this case to protect the welfare of animals, maintain public confidence and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct."

Dr Dhami has 28 days from being informed of the outcome of the hearing in which to make an appeal to the Privy Council.