The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has decided to take no further action against London-based Eleonora Corsi MRCVS after a hearing regarding the care of a pregnant Chihuahua named Kika.

Dr Corsi consulted with Kika's owners about the management of her pregnancy at the end of November 2017, finding at least 4 puppies on an x-ray taken at the time. 

The first of five charges against Dr Corsi was that on the 14th December, after being advised by Kika's owners that the dog had produced two live puppies and one dead puppy the previous night, she failed to advise them that Kika needed an immediate veterinary examination.

The second charge was that, having been telephoned for a second time by the owner, she still failed to advise the owners that Kika required an immediate veterinary examination.

The third charge was that, following an examination of Kika that afternoon, and having ascertained that Kika required a caesarean section to remove one undelivered puppy, Dr Corsi failed to perform the caesarean section that day and advised the owner that Kika could undergo the caesarean section (at the practice, performed by her) the next day (or words to the effect).

The charge also stated that she failed to advise the owner that Kika’s health and welfare required the caesarean section to be performed that day; and that she failed to advise them that, if she or another veterinary surgeon at the practice could not perform the surgery that day, Kika needed to be referred to the out-of-hours clinic so that the caesarean section could take place on the 14th December.

The fourth charge was that Dr Corsi failed to recognise that Kika’s health and welfare required a caesarean section to be performed on 14th December.

The fifth charge was that, on 16th December 2017, having been telephoned by the owner at about 5pm and having been informed that Kika was weak and had not been eating post-operatively, Dr Corsi failed to advise the owner that Kika should be presented urgently for a veterinary examination.

The Disciplinary Committee considered the facts of the case and heard evidence from a number of witnesses including the owners of Kika and Dr Corsi, and from Mr Maltman MRCVS who was called as an expert witness on behalf of the College and Mr Chitty, who was called as an expert witness on behalf of Dr Corsi. 

Having considered all of the evidence, the Committee found all aspects of the first and second charges proven in their entirety.

The Committee found the majority of the third charge not proved, with the exception of the fact that it found that Dr Corsi did advise the owner that she could undertake the Caesarean section on 15 December 2017.

In light of the Committee’s findings in respect of the aspects of charge three that were not proved, charge four was also found not proved.

Finally, the Committee considered that charge five was found not proved.

The Committee then went on to consider whether the charges that were found proven amounted to serious professional misconduct either individually and/or cumulatively.

Committee Chair Cerys Jones said: "In light of the evidence of both parties’ experts, the Committee was of the view that there was a risk of harm or injury resulting from Dr Corsi’s failure - the Committee decided that this was an aggravating factor.

"However, the Committee took into account that, at the time of both calls, Dr Corsi had a rationale for her decision, that she asked appropriate questions and received answers which led her to make what she considered to be a reasoned assessment.

"She had also made arrangements in both calls to be kept updated either at a pre-arranged time or sooner if Kika’s condition changed. On this basis, the Committee was satisfied that, while this was an error of judgement, it did not fall so far short of what was expected as to amount to disgraceful conduct."

Therefore, the Committee decided that while Dr Corsi’s conduct in Charges 1 and 2 demonstrated a departure from professional standards,  the falling short was not so grave as to amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

The full decision can be read here: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded Lincolnshire-based Elizabeth Sing May Law MRCVS after hearing charges against her and Julia Louise Creese MRCVS which concerned an incident where a dog remained at their practice overnight without adequate monitoring and/or post-operative aftercare.

The charge against Ms Law was that in November 2017, having performed surgery on Kiwi, a German Shepherd/Wolfhound-cross dog, to address gastric dilation volvulus (GDV), she failed to obtain informed consent to the entirety of the surgical process and management, including post-operative aftercare.

The charge also stated that she failed to provide adequate analgesia to Kiwi before, during or after the surgery, failed to provide appropriate and adequate fluid therapy to Kiwi, failed to offer an appropriate and adequate post-operative care plan and/or post-operative transfer for Kiwi to another practice and failed to inform the owners that there would be nobody present at the practice to provide post-operative monitoring and aftercare for Kiwi for approximately seven hours during the night.

Finally the charge stated that Ms Law allowed Kiwi to remain at the practice overnight from 12:30am to 07:45am without adequate monitoring or post-operative aftercare.

Ms Law admitted some of the charges against her, including that she had failed to obtain informed consent, failed to offer an appropriate and/or adequate post-operative care plan, failed to inform the owners that there would be nobody present at the practice and allowed Kiwi to remain at the practice overnight without adequate monitoring and/or post-operative aftercare. However, she denied that she failed to provide adequate analgesia or fluid therapy to Kiwi. 

The Committee found all of the charges proved, with the exception of failing to provide adequate analgesia during the perioperative period.

Having considered the facts, the Committee then moved on to consider whether the admitted and proven charges against Ms Law amounted to serious professional misconduct, taking into account any aggravating and mitigating factors. The aggravating features were that, as a result of Ms Law’s failures in relation to analgesia and fluid therapy, there was either actual injury to Kiwi, or a risk of such injury.

In mitigation, the Committee considered that she promptly and accurately diagnosed GDV, and proceeded to perform the necessary emergency surgery. The Committee considered that the charges related to a single isolated incident and that Ms Law has had an unblemished career to date. They also noted that Ms Law had made open and frank admissions as to the majority of the charges. 

The Committee found that the conduct of Ms Law set out in the majority of the charges did not amount to serious professional misconduct. However, in the judgement of the Committee, Ms Law’s conduct in allowing Kiwi to remain at the practice overnight without adequate monitoring or post-operative aftercare did amount to serious professional misconduct. 

Jane Downes, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: "The Committee considers that the respondent (Ms Law) has insight into the serious mistake that she made in failing to ensure that Kiwi was checked or monitored overnight. The Committee has found that this was a single isolated incident, which involved a serious lapse of clinical judgement, which will probably stay in the mind of the respondent for the rest of her career.

"The respondent has been in practice for some nine years now, and apart from this incident, there is no suggestion that the respondent has fallen short of the standards expected of her on any other occasion.  The Committee does not consider that there is a risk that the respondent is likely to leave an animal overnight after major surgery again, without ensuring that it is checked during that time, and, as such, the Committee considers that there is no future risk to the welfare of animals so far as the respondent is concerned."

The Committee considered that the finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect in this case is too serious for no further action to be taken, having regard to the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct.

The Committee therefore concluded that the appropriate sanction in this case was to issue a reprimand to Ms Law, in relation to the finding of serious professional misconduct.

Jane Downes added: "The Committee considers that this sanction, coupled with the findings of fact and disgraceful conduct made against the respondent, is sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards of conduct. The Committee does not consider it necessary to issue a warning to the respondent about her future conduct, on the basis that the Committee has concluded that there is no risk of repetition."

There were three charges against Ms Creese, all pertaining to the period between July 2016 and November 2017.

The first charge was that she failed to ensure that there were adequate systems and processes in place for out-of-hours’ care for in-patients.

The second charge was that she publicised that the practice had "24 hour care provided by our vets at our practice" and/or "Care 24/7 for your pets" on its website, which suggested that staff were present at the practice 24 hours a day when they were not and as such publicity was dishonest and/or misleading.

The third charge against Ms Creese was that she failed to ensure that Kiwi's owners were informed about arrangements at the practice for out-of-hours’ care for in-patients. 

At the outset of the hearing, Ms Creese denied all the charges against her. 

After hearing evidence from relevant witnesses, the Committee considered that the practice did have in place systems and processes for out-of-hours care for in-patients and that there was no evidence of repeated or ignored failures of these systems and processes. The Committee therefore found the charges against Ms Creese not proved and all three were dismissed.

The RCVS has removed 346 veterinary surgeons from the Register for non-payment of their annual renewal fee.

The final deadline for paying the fee was 31 May 2019, with the 346 who did not pay being removed on 1 June 2019, compared to 308 last year.

Those who were removed from the Register but have subsequently paid to be restored are not named on the list.

The RCVS says it sent reminders to all MsRCVS, including emails and text messages, reminding them that the fee was due. Letters were sent to those members that the College does not have an email address or mobile telephone number for.

A list of those who have not paid their fee has now been published. Practices are encouraged to check the list to ensure that no employees are named.

The College also wants to remind veterinary surgeons that, although paying the fee is required to remain on the Register, to complete their registration in full they need to confirm they are compliant with the continuing professional development (CPD) requirement and complete the criminal disclosures form. Both of these are required by the Code of Professional Conduct and can be completed on the ‘My Account’ area.

Anyone with queries about completing the registration process should contact the Registration Department on 020 7202 0707 or registration@rcvs.org.uk.

Shams Mir MRCVS, Chair of the BVU, has launched a petition to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons which asks that they do not allow remote prescription of POM-V medicines without a physical examination, as was proposed and discussed at the Council meeting held at the end of last year

The petition follows the news that IVC is to launch its own telemedicine service, joining three others already in the game, at least one of which is pushing for a relaxation of the rules surrounding the  prescription of POM-V medicines.

For clarity, veterinary surgeons are currently allowed to remote prescribe medicines for animals that meet the definition of 'under his care' (i.e. seen immediately before, or "recently enough or often enough for the veterinary surgeon to have personal knowledge of the condition of the animal or current health status of the herd or flock to make a diagnosis and prescribe").

In other words, there is nothing to stop bricks and mortar practices offering video consultations and prescribing medicines to those of their existing clients that they have seen recently enough. 

What Shams and the BVU are petitioning against is the idea of allowing companies staffed by veterinary surgeons to prescribe veterinary medicines for animals that they have never seen in the flesh.

They argue that remote prescribing will:

1. First and foremost risk animal patient welfare and herd health

2. Create a two-tier system of care within the profession

3. Break down the practice-based vet-client relationship 

4. Disrupt veterinary services due to complications related to out-of-hours emergency cover, transfer of patient and patient histories etc. of remotely treated patients

5. Cause clients to face increased costs by paying for telemedicine consultations and then requiring examination and treatment in practice

6. Negatively impact the financial condition of veterinary practices and professionals.

These all seem very possible consequences of allowing remote prescribing, indeed some have already come to pass in the world of human medicine following the launch of Babylon.

The counter argument is that remote prescription will improve access to veterinary care as people don’t have to flog down to the practice for a flea treatment and the cost of a consultation is reduced. There is surely truth in that.

The other point that is fundamental to this debate is the type of drug being prescribed remotely. With so many small animal parasiticides having already gone OTC, is it really necessary to talk to a veterinary surgeon before buying a POM-V flea treatment? Perhaps not.

However, that doesn’t necessarily present a case for remote prescribing such drugs; if they don’t need veterinary input, then you could equally argue they just need reclassifying.

So, should you sign this petition? Well, I think so, yes. Remote prescribing will come. It’s inevitable. But given the risks, surely the pragmatic starting point is to trial remote prescribing amongst existing clients of bricks and mortar practices, and only if that is successful to broaden it to non-clients of bricks and mortar practices.

If both those proved successful, and with technology advancing in the background, it might then be sensible to look at whether non bricks and mortar practices could remote prescribe. But that’s quite a big ‘might’.

Meantime, you can sign the petition here: https://www.change.org/p/royal-college-of-veterinary-surgeons-stop-authorising-prescription-of-pom-v-without-physical-examination-of-the-patient

You can discuss the petition with Shams here: https://www.vetsurgeon.org/nonclinical/f/6/t/28273.aspx

This week, the RCVS will be sending every veterinary surgeon its Survey of the Profession, designed amongst other things to help the College and other organisations prioritise the issues they tackle and the support they offer.

The survey is conducted every four to five years and asks vets to answer questions about a variety of subjects including demographic data (for example, socio-economic background, educational attainment, race/ethnicity, disability), work-related data (for example, employment status, location of workplace, type of workplace, hours of work, position in practice) and information about professional achievement (for example, hours of continuing professional development (CPD) undertaken and extra qualifications earned).

The survey, which is conducted on the College’s behalf by the Institute for Employment Studies, also ask respondents about their views on different aspects of their profession, including career plans, challenges facing the profession, and wellbeing. 

This year, the survey also asks for your view of the RCVS, including its values, how it should communicate, and what it should prioritise in future years.

Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO (pictured right), said: "The results of the Surveys form a very important ‘snapshot’ of the profession at a given point in time, but they also prove useful for years to come in terms of how the College develops its regulatory and educational policy, the areas it chooses to focus on and the issues it chooses to tackle. 

"The ensuing reports are also used by a myriad of other individuals, such as those in academia, government and representative bodies, as well as journalists. It’s therefore really important that we have as accurate a picture as possible. So although completing the Surveys is entirely voluntary, we strongly encourage members of the professions to take the time to complete them. It will, ultimately, help the development of appropriate and supportive policies for your profession."

In addition to the main survey, there will be an additional survey for MsRCVS who practise overseas. This survey aims to better understand why they continue to retain their MRCVS status, what this status means in the countries in which they work, global attitudes towards the RCVS and how the College could improve its communication with them.

Dunbartonshire-based Georgina Bretman has been struck off the Register of Veterinary Nurses by the RCVS VN Disciplinary Committee following her conviction in 2017 for causing unnecessary pain and suffering to an animal.

In August 2017, Georgina Bretman was found guilty of causing unnecessary pain and suffering to her two-year-old dog Florence by injecting the animal with insulin, causing the dog to suffer from hypoglycaemia, collapse, convulsions and seizures, for which it needed immediate veterinary treatment to avoid coma and death.

Following her conviction, Miss Bretman was sentenced to a Community Payback Order, with a requirement to carry out 140 hours of unpaid work. An order was also made to take Florence away from her and to ban her from owning a dog for two years. 

At the VN Disciplinary Committee hearing, Miss Bretman admitted the facts as contained within the charge against her and the Committee found the charge proved.

The Committee went on to consider whether the charge rendered Miss Bretman unfit to practise.

The Committee heard from Miss Bretman’s counsel, Mr O’Rourke QC who indicated that Miss Bretman accepted that her conviction rendered her unfit to practise as a Registered Veterinary Nurse. The Committee found Miss Bretman’s actions in deliberately administering a poisonous substance to  Florence thereby risking Florence’s death to be “very serious and deplorable conduct on the part of a veterinary nurse, a member of a profession specifically entrusted to look after and care for animals.” It also took into account the fact that Florence needed urgent veterinary treatment to avoid death and that Miss Bretman was in a position of trust over Florence as her owner.

Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "Miss Bretman’s conduct was also liable to have a seriously detrimental effect on the reputation of the profession and to undermine public confidence in the profession. The fact that she was a veterinary nurse was made clear at the trial and reported in the press. The Committee considered that members of the public would be rightly appalled that a Registered Veterinary Nurse had committed an offence of this kind.

The Committee was satisfied that this conduct fell far below the standard expected of a Registered Veterinary Nurse and that Miss Bretman’s conviction was of a nature and seriousness that rendered her unfit to practise."

The Committee then heard oral evidence from Miss Bretman in which she explained that she had always been passionate about working with animals and working in the veterinary profession and how she enjoyed her work as a veterinary nurse with a particular interest in hydrotherapy and rehabilitation.

She spoke about the devastating effect of the incident and the shame that was ‘brought down on her head’. She told the Committee that she had been suspended from her job and, since her conviction, had not worked as a veterinary nurse.

However, Miss Bretman said that, while she accepted and respected the verdict of the court, her stance remained that she had not done what was alleged and now hoped to rebuild her career as a veterinary nurse. She accepted that the offence of which she had been convicted was very serious, particularly for a veterinary nurse.

In considering Miss Bretman’s sanction the Committee took into account the aggravating and mitigating factors. Aggravating factors included the fact there was actual injury to an animal, that it was a pre-meditated and deliberate act against an animal for whom she was responsible, the fact that a medicinal product was misused, a lack of insight and a lack of remorse.

In mitigation the Committee took into account the fact she had no previous disciplinary history, had received positive references and testimonials and that, following the conviction, she demonstrated a willingness to be removed from the Register and to not work with animals to avoid causing embarrassment to the RCVS.

Stuart Drummond said: "The Committee was of the view that the nature and seriousness of Miss Bretman’s behaviour, which led to the conviction, was fundamentally incompatible with being registered as a veterinary nurse. The conduct represented a serious departure from professional standards; serious harm was deliberately caused to an animal; the continued denial of the offence demonstrated a complete lack of insight, especially in regard to the impact of her behaviour on public confidence and trust in the profession. In light of these conclusions, the Committee decided that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was removal from the Register.

"In reaching this decision the Committee recognised the impact this was likely to have on Miss Bretman, which was unfortunate given her young age and her obvious passion for a career as a veterinary nurse. The Committee had considered with care all the positive statements made about her in the references and testimonials provided. However, the need to protect animal welfare, the reputation of the profession and thus the wider public interest, outweighed Miss Bretman’s interests and the Committee concluded that removal was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction. The Committee determined that it was important that a clear message be sent that this sort of behaviour is wholly inappropriate and not to be tolerated. It brought discredit upon Miss Bretman and discredit upon the profession". 

The Committee then directed the RCVS Registrar to remove Miss Bretman’s name from the Register. Miss Bretman has 28 days from being notified of the Committee’s decision to submit an appeal.

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has been awarded the Laureate Award by the Great Place to Work initiative, for being within the top 50 best places to work in the UK for five years in a row.

RCVS CEO Lizzie Lockett said: "I am so proud of our performance in the Great Place to Work Awards and the efforts of everyone at the College, and especially our HR team, who have been tirelessly and creatively striving to make the College a wonderful place to work.

"Consistently being placed in the top 50 Great Places to Work is also a testament to the sustained hard work all of our employees and the important part they play in creating a supportive, interesting and good-humoured workplace.

"We are a service-led organisation and we want to make sure that we give our best to the veterinary professions and the general public. If our team enjoys the work, and the workplace, that will improve the service we are able to offer and, ultimately, benefit animal health and welfare."

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended London-based veterinary surgeon Dr Zahra Tahaneem Rafiq for six months, and found no misconduct against Mr Oscar Perez Maillo in the hearing of a case in which two newborn puppies were taken from their owner.

The hearing concerned an incident which took place at the VetsNow Huyton premises in Liverpool. There were two charges against Dr Rafiq. The first was that in December 2017, shortly after a litter of puppies was delivered by caesarean to a French Bulldog named Lila, she took one of the puppies away from the practice with the intention that it should not be returned to Lila’s owner and that, in doing so, she was dishonest, misleading and had not acted in the best interest of the puppy’s welfare.

Another puppy was taken away by an animal care assistant who was also working at Vets Now Huyton on the night in question.

The second charge against Dr Rafiq was that she had told her employer at VetsNow that the puppy she had taken from the practice had died in the car when she had been driving home when, in fact, the puppy was alive at that stage and, in telling her employer this, she had been dishonest and misleading.

There was one charge against Mr Perez: that he had made an entry in the clinical records for Lila that she had given birth to four live puppies when in fact she had six; that he had only discharged four of the six puppies to the owner; that he knew that his colleagues intended to remove or had removed the puppies; that he had failed to prevent the removal of the puppies and had failed to report to a colleague the removal of the puppies. The charge also stated that, in relation to the incident, Mr Perez had been dishonest, misleading, did not act in the best interests of the puppies’ welfare and failed to keep accurate clinical records.

At the outset of the hearing, Dr Rafiq admitted in full the charges against her and accepted that she had acted dishonestly. Mr Perez admitted some of the charges against him including that he had made the false clinical record, had discharged four rather than six puppies and had failed to keep accurate clinical records, however he denied any knowledge of the intention to remove puppies and denied that his conduct had been misleading or dishonest. 

The Committee was not satisfied that Mr Perez knew at the time of surgery that his colleagues intended to remove the puppies and also considered there was insufficient evidence that he subsequently became aware of their removal.

As a result, the Committee found that he could not have prevented their removal or reported the matter to a colleague. However, the Committee did find that his actions were unintentionally misleading regarding the clinical records and the discharge of the incorrect number of puppies.

The Committee found all the charges against Dr Rafiq proven.

The Committee considered whether the admitted and/or proven charges against Dr Rafiq and Mr Perez amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In respect of Mr Perez, the Committee was critical of his failure to keep accurate clinical records and considered that it was his duty to know how many puppies were born and to record them accurately.

However, while the Committee concluded that Mr Perez’s conduct fell below the expected professional standards of a veterinary surgeon, it did not fall so short as to constitute serious professional misconduct. As a result, no further action was taken against Mr Perez.

In regard to Dr Rafiq, the Committee recognised her admission at the outset that her actions constituted serious professional misconduct and noted her expression of remorse.

The Committee did however have concerns regarding the evidence she gave as to her actions being motivated by animal welfare concerns. The Committee felt that such concerns should have been raised with colleagues and it found that Dr Rafiq had acted recklessly and had been dishonest both with the owner and with her colleagues.

The Committee therefore concluded that her conduct fell so far short of what would be expected of a veterinary surgeon that it constituted serious professional misconduct.

The Committee then considered the sanction against Dr Rafiq, taking into account aggravating and mitigating factors. The aggravating factors included a risk of injury to the puppies, an abuse of the client’s trust, sustained misconduct as the puppy was retained by Dr Rafiq from 2/3 December until its actual death on the night of 5 December, that the dishonesty was sustained until 7 December and that she had only demonstrated limited insight in respect of her wider professional responsibilities.

In mitigation, the Committee considered that her actions involved no financial gain, that it was a single and isolated incident, that she had no previous adverse findings, that she had demonstrated genuine remorse and that she had made admissions at an early stage.

Dr Rafiq, who was unrepresented during the hearing, also submitted evidence in mitigation including testimonials from colleagues and clients, her youth and inexperience at the time, and her remorse, among other things.

In deciding the sanction Ian Arundale, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: "The Committee concluded that Dr Rafiq was a competent veterinary surgeon who was very unlikely to pose a risk to animals in the future.

"However, it considered the reputation of the profession and the need to uphold standards was an important consideration that outweighed the hardship which would be suffered by Dr Rafiq by not being able to practise in her chosen profession. It considered that Dr Rafiq would be fit to return to the profession after a period of suspension.

"It therefore determined that, notwithstanding the nature and extent of the dishonesty in this case, a suspension order was a sufficiently severe sanction to maintain the reputation of the profession and to meet the wider public interest. It took into consideration the overall dishonesty, including that Dr Rafiq had been dishonest when first confronted about these matters, when deciding on the length of any suspension.

"The Committee considered the sanction of suspension was proportionate in the circumstances of this case where there was supporting evidence that Dr Rafiq was a competent and well-regarded veterinary surgeon. It considered the positive testimonial evidence given… and that she was held in high regard by her current employers who were aware of the admitted misconduct, were significant factors in deciding that a suspension order was the proportionate sanction."

The Committee determined that a six-month suspension order would be the most appropriate sanction under the circumstances and directed the Registrar to remove Dr Rafiq from the Register for this period of time.

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has announced that RCVS President-elect Niall Connell, Linda Belton and Jo Dyer have been re-elected to Council after what is believed to have been a record turn out this century.

A total of 8,234 votes were cast in this year’s election, a turnout of 25.5%. The College says the previous highest turnout recorded this century was 22.8%, and it thinks this year's result may even be an all-time record.

It is unclear how much the results were influenced by VetSurgeon.org's reporting of the candidates standing for election, but in another first, Niall Connell was later seen sporting a t-shirt displaying the story: "Arlo said I'm 'by all accounts, something of a national treasure'. Had to do it. Got the T Shirt."

You're welcome, Niall. And huge congratulations to Jo Dyer, who is such a passionate advocate for coal face vets, and to Linda Belton too. 

At the other end of the results, isn't it staggering that there are as many as 422 MsRCVS who are prepared to vote for a single non-issue candidate based the other side of the world. Who are you? Why do you do it? I mean, one can understand a few people voting for the Monster Raving Loony Party out of the general population numbering millions. But 5% of a small, highly educated and qualified profession? What on earth is that about?

The full results, in order of number of votes, are:

• Niall Connell – 3,766 votes (re-elected)

• Linda Belton – 3,581 votes (elected)

• Jo Dyer – 3,146 votes (re-elected)

• John Innes – 2,716 votes

• Kate Richards – 2,283 votes

• Tim Greet – 2,280 votes 

• Peter Robinson – 1,791 votes

• John Davies – 507 votes

• Tom Lonsdale – 422 votes

Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for the election, said: "Congratulations to Niall and Jo for being re-elected to Council and congratulations also to Linda who we look forward to welcoming to Council at this year’s Royal College Day on Friday 12 July. I would also like to thank Kate, Tim and Peter for their contributions during their time on Council and give my commiserations to them and the other candidates who were unsuccessful this year. 

"I was delighted to see that, this year, we had over a quarter of those eligible to vote doing so which means both a record number of votes and a record turnout – it seems this was assisted by our email reminders which, each time they were sent out, lead to a significant boost in uptake.

"However, we will not rest on our laurels and will continue to think about how we can further improve engagement in the election process and turnout for subsequent years."

The results of the election will be declared formally at this year’s Royal College Day – the College’s Annual General Meeting and awards ceremony – which takes place at the Royal Institute of British Architects on Friday 12 July 2019 where the successful candidates will also start their new four-year terms.

No election to Veterinary Nursing Council was held this year due to the fact that there were only two candidates – Liz Cox and Jane Davidson – standing for the two elected places. Both Liz and Jane will take up their three-year terms at Royal College Day.

This morning, VetSurgeon.org published an April Fools fake news story, to the effect that the RCVS planned to increase retention fees by 150%.

I had hoped that the increasing absurdity of the reasons given for the rise might have tipped everyone off to the fact that the story was a spoof.

The idea that the College would ask its members to fund some glitzy, showy, award-winning designer headquarters along the lines of London’s City Hall? C’mon. London City Hall employs 1000 staff, whilst the Royal College employs less than 100. And let's face it, the RCVS has no record of having showy offices. On the contrary, it has managed to operate out of a sardine can now for a great many years. Have you ever been in the lift at Horseferry Road? You need to breathe in.

Or that the College had set aside £6M to recruit and pay 20 veterinary surgeons as short term contracted OVs to help in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Let’s say a flight from Delhi to London costs £500, give or take. Twenty vets. That’s £10,000 to get them here. Let's say they’re here for 6 months. That’s £299,500 per vet. You really think the College is going to ask you to pay more than a quarter of a million pounds to fly in a single vet for 6 months? Or that 20 recruits would solve the predicted OV shortage?

Lastly, the quote, supposedly from an Indian vet, but one with a name that doesn’t really sound like a name (still less an Indian one), but does sound strangely like it may be an anagram of April Fool.

There have been a small number of reports of people being really upset by this story. I guess they must have skim read, or only read the headline.

To them I want to say sorry, I genuinely didn’t mean to upset anyone.

In fact, I thought it might cause some reflection on what good value the RCVS really offers. It maintains the register and thereby your ability to practice, it runs the disciplinary process (an essential component of maintaining public trust), it oversees and sets educational standards, it awards Fellowships, Diplomas and Certificates, it runs the Practice Standards Scheme.

All that, and more for £340 per annum?

Honestly? I think it would be cheap at half the price.

Photo: Truth is that the RCVS has operated out of a sardine can for years.
By Rl - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The RCVS has announced a new student innovation competition called "What's Your Big Idea?", being held by ViVet ahead of the second Innovation Symposium in October.

The competition is open to all UK-based undergraduate veterinary students and offers them the opportunity to work as a team to brainstorm, develop and present an innovative idea to a board of industry professionals.

Students can enter either as a single applicant or as a group (of roughly five members), with single applicants then being placed in a group with other applicants from their university. There can be more than one team representing each university.

Each student’s project can cover any aspect of veterinary health innovation. The RCVS suggests potential projects might include: innovations within veterinary education, innovations to improve sanitation and hygiene, innovations to improve veterinary-public communication and innovations to improve patient safety.

Entries must show how they have improved upon – or extended beyond – current expectations of best practice in their chosen area.

Each applicant will receive support from one of the Association of Veterinary Students’ (AVS) Vet Futures Ambassadors, as well as a mentor session with a chosen industry professional to guide them on their project.

Teams will need to submit three components for judging: a log of their progress throughout the project (which can include social media updates using the hashtag #ViVetStudentInnovation), mentor engagement and feedback, and a five-minute video ‘business pitch’.

The three finalist groups of the competition will be invited to present their pitch to a board of industry professionals at a ‘Dragon’s Den’ style event held at the RCVS ViVet 2019 Innovation Symposium on Tuesday 1 October 2019 in Manchester.

The winning and runner-up groups will then be selected and will be presented alongside the ‘mentor’s choice’ award. The Mentor’s Choice award will be selected by the team mentors. The prize will be awarded to an individual who shows excellence and enthusiasm within their work on the project.

Anthony Roberts, RCVS Director of Leadership & Innovation (pictured right), said: "This competition provides a great opportunity for veterinary students to engage with their fellow classmates across different fields of study and to work on projects that could genuinely make a difference to animal health and welfare and the way veterinary services are delivered. Teams will receive one-on-one mentoring and will be guided through the innovation process, developing skills that will be useful throughout their careers. We look forward to seeing the three finalist teams presenting at the RCVS ViVet Innovation Symposium in Manchester on 1 October." 

Zoe Skinner, Vet Futures Student Representatives Team Leader, said: “This competition is a great opportunity for veterinary students to receive mentoring from experienced veterinary professionals and form contacts within our profession. It gives students a way to work together as a team and allows them to learn how to produce and develop innovative, problem-solving concepts as well as skills in delivering presentations. These are all important aspects of our career ahead, which will look brilliant on our CV’s.”

ViVet is now accepting registrations for the competition for the 2018/19 academic year. To enter, applicants must submit an online registration form. For further information, email info@vivet.org.uk.