The RCVS has announced that the Code of Professional Conduct has been updated to restrict - from April 2016 - the use of the word specialist and its derivatives in veterinary practice marketing and promotional materials, except when referring to an RCVS Recognised Specialist.

Alternatives for practitioners who want to describe a special area of expertise in their marketing materials, but who are not on the RCVS list of Specialists include: 'Special interest in ...', 'Experienced in ...', 'Advanced qualifications in ...', or, for those who hold the status, 'Advanced Practitioner'.

The College says the changes will also apply to European Veterinary Specialists fully recognised by the European Board of Veterinary Specialisation, who will now need to join the RCVS list if they wish to use the title in the UK. However, European Specialists will be offered a simplified application process and a 50% reduction in the fee, because their revalidation is carried out by their specialist European college.

The College has also extended the deadline for new applications for Specialist Status to 30th September 2015. The deadline for re-applications by existing RCVS Specialists remains 14th August 2015.

In addition to changing the Code, the College has also amended Chapter 23 of its supporting guidance ('Advertising and publicity') to give more detailed advice on use of the terms 'specialist' and 'specialising in' in the context of advertising and referrals.

Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar, said: "Specialist status is not easy to achieve. Those who hold it have achieved a postgraduate qualification at a minimum of Diploma level and have satisfied us that they make an active contribution in their speciality, for example, through publishing academic papers.

"The change to the Code of Professional Conduct is therefore intended to ensure the integrity of the specialist list and title, so that those who do not have RCVS-recognised qualifications, experience and expertise do not claim or imply they hold such a status.

"These changes will benefit the public and, ultimately, animal welfare by clearly identifying those who have specialised knowledge and skills. They should also aid members of the broader profession in the UK when they are deciding who they should refer cases to.

"We recognise this represents a significant change which is why we have allowed a 'bedding in' period before the change comes into force, as well as extending the deadline for applications."

To find out more about applying for Specialist status, visit www.rcvs.org.uk/specialists. The List of RCVS Specialists is available at www.rcvs.org.uk/listofspecialists.
 
Details of the updates made to the Code can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetcode. These changes have also been reflected in the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct app which can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk/codeapp.

The RCVS has announced the launch of a consultation on the new proposed list of 'day-one' clinical skills needed by veterinary nurses when they first enter practice.

The College says it welcomes comments on the new list from veterinary nurses, veterinary surgeons and all those involved in veterinary nurse training and education.

The current Day-One Skills document was developed by RCVS Awards, the College's awarding body, in 2010 and provides a list of those skills student veterinary nurses are expected to have gained by the end of their training, and to be competent and confident in when they first go into practice.

As RCVS Awards will be closed by the end of this year, the RCVS is taking the opportunity to review the Day One Skills to bring them closer into line with our recently revised Day One Competences, and to reduce the number of required skills in order to make it more relevant to clinical practice.

Julie Dugmore, Head of Veterinary Nursing, said: "The current document was developed from an awarding body perspective and not that of the regulator, so it specifies a large number of non-clinical skills, for example, handling and moving equipment safely, which, while important, are somewhat out of our regulatory remit.

"Given the wide variety of veterinary practice settings to which student veterinary nurses are exposed, it is important that we, as the industry regulator, define the required day-one skills and ensure that these align with the required day-one competences. We need to review the skills list to ensure consistency, that it reflects current practice, and that it only includes those skills deemed necessary for registration purposes. A clearer focus on safe and effective clinical skills would support our primary regulatory role: that of protecting animal welfare and the public interest."

The consultation sets out the proposed Day-One Skills, grouped according to the corresponding day-one competences, and asks for feedback on their relevance, accuracy and completeness. Comments would be welcomed from higher education institutions, awarding organisations, centres, and training practices, as well as veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons.

The consultation is available via the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/consultations and the deadline for responses is 5pm on 29 July 2015.

The RCVS has announced that its Professional Standards Advice Team, which offers advice about the Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance, is now trialling extended hours and remaining open until 7pm Monday to Friday.

The trial will last for three months.

The closing time of 7pm was decided by the RCVS Standards Committee because research conducted by both the Society of Practising Veterinary Surgeons and the RCVS determined that this is the average closing time for veterinary practices in the UK.

On average the Professional Conduct Department deals with 7,500 calls a year (which includes calls from veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses looking for advice about professional responsibilities and standards) as well as around 2,000 written requests which are dealt with exclusively by the Professional Standards Advice Team.

Laura McClintock, Standards and Advisory Manager, said: "The aim of the trial is to determine if the profession would take advantage of these extended hours and, therefore, if our team should permanently extend its operating hours to provide a better service to the profession.

"However, it must be remembered that this is not an emergency service but an extension to our standard service and advice during the extended hours will not necessarily be any more immediate than at any other time during the day because it may need further research or input from members of the Standards Committee.

"Prior to launching the trial we also liaised with 10 other UK healthcare and professional regulators and found that our current professional advice service compared favourably to others and that we were providing a more extensive service than many."

The team aims to provide clear, concise and consistent advice to help veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses understand their professional responsibilities and support compliance with the Code. It also distinguishes between professional requirements, legal requirements and suggested good practice and may offer suggestions about how professional responsibilities can be applied in practice.

However, there are some areas on which the team is unable to offer guidance. For example, it cannot offer clinical advice or advice on legal matters such as employment law, maternity rights, or contractual or civil disputes.

Advice is also available for members of the public, for example, to help animal owners understand what they can expect from their veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.

To contact the team call 020 7202 0789 or, alternatively, email profcon@rcvs.org.uk

RCVS Council member Professor the Lord Trees has today submitted a Private Members’ Bill to the ballot of the House of Lords which would legally protect the title ‘Veterinary Nurse’.

If the Bill is drawn sufficiently highly in the ballot, it will be debated in the Lords and the Commons. If approved by both Houses, it'll become law.

As it is drawn up, the Bill would prohibit use of the title ‘Veterinary Nurse’ for any person whose name is not on the RCVS Register of Veterinary Nurses. Any non-registered person who used the title Veterinary Nurse or a name, title or description that implied they were on the Register would be guilty of an offence and may be fined or convicted under the Veterinary Surgeons Act.

Lord Trees said: “It is very exciting, and a privilege, to be entering a Private Members’ Bill to protect the title veterinary nurse into the ballot for Private Members’ Bills in Parliament. If we are drawn high enough in the ballot and if we can get Parliamentary time – two important ‘ifs’ – I am confident that the Bill will receive total cross-party support.

“It would mark the final brick in the wall of creating a fully-fledged, recognised and protected veterinary nursing profession. This is what the veterinary nursing profession merits and the public deserve.”

The House of Lords ballot will be drawn before the summer recess. In the meantime, the RCVS is encouraging registered veterinary nurses to back its campaign to protect the title and raise awareness of the issue with their clients.

Further details about the campaign, including a short animated film, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/vntitle

Vet Futures, the joint initiative by the RCVS and BVA to stimulate debate about the future of the profession, has opened a new discussion hospice care, and whether it it will become mainstream in veterinary medicine.

This month's Vet Futures guest blogger, Kath Dyson, a former veterinary surgeon who qualified from Glasgow in 1989, writes that veterinary palliative care, while a relatively recent phenomenon, has been growing in stature, particularly in the United States, with symposia and conferences on the subject as well as webinars and chapters in text books.

She notes the increasing number of UK vets offering hospice care, highlighting the differences between palliative services offered in human and veterinary medicine as well as debates within the profession over the advantages and disadvantages of palliative care versus euthanasia.

She said: "In animal hospice it is the pet's owner who takes on all the financial, practical and emotional costs involved, whereas human patients have a lot more support available. Euthanasia is always an option in veterinary medicine, and indeed euthanasia of an animal can legally be carried out by anyone, so long as it is done humanely."

On the euthanasia debate she adds: "Some regard euthanasia as more of a last resort, with hospice assisted natural death being seen as more preferable and only a minority of patients requiring euthanasia. Others feel that euthanasia is more often likely to be the preferable outcome of a period of hospice care in the animal patient, even though they do not rule out a natural death."

Overall she argues that additional expertise from veterinary surgeons in end of life care will help the profession be "even better able to provide truly lifelong care to all their animal patients".

To accompany Kath Dyson's article, this month's poll asks if hospice care will become a standard part of practice.

Last month's poll asked if vets are given adequate information, guidance and support on ethnic and cultural diversity in relation to a blog written by a British Asian vet about prejudice he encountered from a client. The vast majority (90%) of the 118 people who responded to the poll thought that the profession was lacking in support when it came to diversity. Diversity in the profession and how to increase it has been a key topic identified by the project and it will be one of the issues addressed in the final Vet Futures Report published later this year.

To take part in this month's poll and to read and comment on Kathy Dyson's blog visit www.vetfutures.org.uk/discuss

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a charge against Nicholas Robert William Horniman MRCVS, a veterinary surgeon from Cinderford, Gloucestershire, that alleged he was guilty of pet insurance fraud, along with one of his clients, and of dishonestly altering clinical records.

The charge was that, between December 1 2008 and June 30 2014, in relation to Cassy, a Labrador retriever belonging to Jayne Bowkett, Mr Horniman:

• suggested to Mrs Bowkett that she take out an insurance policy for the dog using owner's details that were different from those used for its current insurance policy;
• dishonestly arranged for or allowed practice records for the dog in the name of Bowkett to be discontinued and separate records to be started in the name Griffiths;
• and, dishonestly maintained practice records for the dog as if she were different from the one for which previous practice records had been maintained.

The Committee heard that Cassy, who had previously been diagnosed with hip dysplasia, had been registered with Pets Barn Veterinary Group in Gloucestershire in May 2008 when Mr Horniman was the Principal and owner of the three-practice group. Cassy was treated at the Cinderford branch of the practice where she received regular prescriptions for her condition.

At some point in 2008/2009, Mrs Bowkett had relayed concerns to Mr Horniman that her current pet insurance policy needed to be renewed, that the renewed policy would not cover Cassy's existing hip problems and that she would be unable to pay for any future operations herself. It was alleged that, in response to Mrs Bowkett's concerns, Mr Horniman told her that they could take Cassy off the practice computer and put her back on under a different insurance policy in a different name.

Mrs Bowkett took out a policy with Petplan, beginning on 13 August 2009, using her father's details instead of her own. It was alleged that Mr Horniman then arranged for new practice records to be set up in the name 'Cassy Griffiths'. These new records were first used substantively in May 2010 when Cassy returned to the practice with hip problems, following which two separate records were maintained for the dog under 'Cassy Bowkett' and 'Cassy Griffiths'.

In August 2010 Dariusz Drozdz MRCVS, a vet who had treated Cassy several times, had been told by Mrs Bowkett that the dog had two separate records. He told the Disciplinary Committee that he queried this with Mr Horniman who suggested that it was a mistake and that they 'RIP' the name Cassy Bowkett. Mr Drozdz disagreed on this course of action but was told by Mr Horniman to 'leave it to me' and the records were then changed to say that Cassy Bowkett had died.

Mrs Bowkett alleged that, at some point in 2011, Mr Horniman explained to her that it would no longer be possible to claim for treatment for Cassy's hip dysplasia under the Petplan policy in her father's name. However, the policy remained active, and was transferred into Mrs Bowkett's name upon her father's death.

In July 2011 Cassy Griffiths was seen by Jennifer Jones MRCVS, a part-time locum vet at the Cinderford practice, who told the Committee that she was puzzled about why there were very few clinical records relating to the animal. A receptionist explained to her that there were two sets of records for the same dog and that Mr Horniman had instructed her to mark the original pet as having been euthanased and close its records and create a second new record for the dog. Ms Jones tendered her resignation shortly afterwards citing concerns that a pet had been 'reincarnated to ensure continued income from insurance claims'. In November 2011 Ms Jones submitted a formal complaint to the RCVS.

During the course of the hearing the Committee heard evidence from Mrs Bowkett, Mr Drozdz and Ms Jones, amongst others.

In giving evidence Mrs Bowkett admitted that she had knowingly engaged in fraud but maintained that at all times she had acted with the knowledge and on the advice of Mr Horniman. However, the Committee found that she was unable to remember any relevant material dates and was unclear about the chronology of events. It was suggested on several occasions that she was lying to the Committee, which she denied. However, the Committee believed that she took no responsibility for her own fraudulent actions but merely blamed Mr Horniman and that she had a strong motive to engage in the insurance fraud.

In regards to the evidence given by Mr Drozdz the Committee noted that he did not record his suspicions of possible fraud, that he continued to treat Cassy Griffiths after he raised his concerns, and that he appeared to have accepted Mr Horniman's assurance that he had dealt with the issue.

The Committee found that Ms Jones was correct in her suspicions that there was only one dog. However, it felt she offered no evidence to support her suspicion that this was part of Mr Horniman's 'scheme to maximise income for the practice' as she alleged in her witness statement.

The Committee also heard oral evidence from and on behalf of Mr Horniman who categorically denied suggesting to Mrs Bowkett that she commit insurance fraud and attempting to cover this up through the maintenance of two separate records. He maintained that it was not until Ms Jones voiced her concerns that he realised that Cassy Bowkett and Cassy Griffiths were the same dog.

The Committee voiced a number of concerns about Mr Horniman's actions and behaviour and, at times, found his evidence to be unsatisfactory. For example, the Committee found it difficult to understand why 'alarm bells' did not ring that he was dealing with only one dog when he prescribed medication for two almost identical dogs in May 2010 when only one was presented for examination. It also queried why, when he became aware that the insurance policy for Cassy Griffiths was fraudulent, practice records were not updated and no attempt was made to contact Petplan to inform them of this, as is clearly advised by the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct.

Furthermore, the Committee was concerned that, in his correspondence with the RCVS, he was less than transparent, candid and honest. The Committee considered this to be unacceptable behaviour from a professional in dealings with investigations undertaken by the regulatory body.

In making its judgment, the Committee had to make a decision on whose account it felt to be more reliable in regards to the first element of the charge.

Noreen Burrows, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "In coming to its conclusion ... the Committee is faced with conflicting evidence from Mrs Bowkett, who is an admitted fraudster, admits to acting dishonestly and to lying to Petplan. This is in contrast to the evidence from the Respondent, who is of good character, had an unblemished personal record over 23 years and is supported by impressive character references."

The Committee found the evidence of Mrs Bowkett to be "vague, lacking in clarity and inconsistent with the facts" and therefore rejected her evidence concerning the first element of the charge. In regards to the second element of the charge, the Committee was not satisfied that Mr Horniman had arranged for or allowed the records to be changed as was alleged. In regards to the third element it found that, since it had already rejected the charge that Mr Horniman suggested to Mrs Bowkett that she embark upon insurance fraud, it was unlikely that Mr Horniman would have acted dishonestly in the manner alleged.

Noreen Burrows added: "In the light of the above findings, all charges against the Respondent are dismissed."

The RCVS has launched a new online form to allow veterinary surgeons to change their Register title to 'Dr'.

You can make the change by logging into the 'My Account' area of the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/login) where you can access the form. Usernames and passwords for the My Account area were sent to all veterinary surgeons in February as part of the annual renewal process.

The College says an email confirmation is sent once the form is completed and changes should take effect immediately in the My Account area. However, it may take up to 24 hours before the title appears on an individual's Register entry.

The use of 'Doctor' as a courtesy title was approved by RCVS Council at its March meeting, following a public consultation which garnered more than 11,000 responses.

Use of the title is optional and veterinary surgeons who choose to use 'Doctor' or 'Dr' should use it in conjunction with their name and either the descriptor 'veterinary surgeon' or the postnominal letters 'MRCVS'. This ensures that they do not mislead the public by suggesting or implying that they hold a human medical qualification or a PhD.

Veterinary surgeons can now cast votes for their preferred candidates in this year’s RCVS Council election. 

• Dr Niall Connell MRCVS
• Dr Joanna Dyer MRCVS
• Dr Professor Tim Greet FRCVS
• Dr Lynne Hill MRCVS
• Dr Richard Hillman MRCVS
• Dr Heidi Janicke MRCVS
• Dr Hannah Jordan MRCVS
• Dr R.M.B. (aka Thomas) Lonsdale MRCVS
• Dr James Main MRCVS
• Dr Katherine Richards MRCVS
• Dr Peter Robinson MRCVS 

The RCVS President and Principal of the RVC, Professor Stuart Reid, has announced that he is to run the London Marathon on 26 April, in aid of the RVC Animal Care Trust, the Veterinary Benevolent Fund (VBF) and Mind.

The RVC Animal Care Trust will use the funds to assist the student bodies at all of the UK veterinary schools. The VBF, through Vetlife, the Vet Helpline and the Veterinary Surgeons' Health Support Programme, offers specific assistance to members of the veterinary team. Mind has been working with the profession and the veterinary schools at all levels in developing approaches to mental health and wellbeing.

Stuart said: "As President of the RCVS and Principal of the RVC I feel that I am in a privileged position and I would like to take every opportunity to help break down the stigma associated with mental health and wellbeing, and to raise what I can to assist these three excellent charities in dealing with what is, sadly, a major issue for us.

"Most of all, I am doing it for the nine people I know personally who are no longer with us, and the many more who have found, and will find, help in time."

If you'd like to help Stuart meet his sponsorship target of £10,000, you can sponsor him at: uk.virginmoneygiving.com/StuartReid.

As of today, veterinary surgeons in the UK can call themselves 'Doctor', following a decision made by the RCVS Council.  

The decision to allow the use of the courtesy title followed a consultation which received 11,202 responses, of which 81% were in favour of the change, 13% against, and 6% did not mind either way.

The College says the idea is to align the UK with international practice, provide greater clarity for the profession and offer reassurance to clients and the animal-owning public that all veterinary surgeons registered with the RCVS, regardless of where they qualified, have veterinary degrees of an appropriate standard. Most international veterinary surgeons use the title and, in Australia and New Zealand, this is frequently tied to registration and professional standing, rather than necessarily academic attainment.

RCVS President Professor Stuart Reid said: "I am very pleased that the response from the consultation gave Council such clear direction and has allowed us to bring UK vets in line with the majority of veterinarians worldwide. It was my privilege to pose the question, which has been well and truly answered by the profession and the public.

"Whether one regards the decision as correcting a historical anomaly or simply providing greater clarity at home and abroad, there is no doubt that the issue has generated huge interest. Yet regardless of whether individual vets choose to use the title, it will not change the profession's ongoing commitment to the very highest of standards."

Nearly 50% of respondents to the consultation were veterinary surgeons, 22% veterinary students, 21% animal-owning members of the public, and the rest were veterinary nurses, veterinary nurse students, practice managers and non-animal-owning members of the public.

RCVS CEO, Nick Stace said: "I am delighted that such a strong message came from both the public and the profession on this issue. We have a responsibility to maintain confidence in the veterinary profession and this move will help underline to the public in particular that veterinary surgeons work to very high standards, regardless of where they qualified."

Use of the title is optional, and guidance has been produced to support the change. It stresses that veterinary surgeons using the title should be careful not to mislead the public, and that it is important that the use of 'Doctor' or 'Dr' by a veterinary surgeon does not suggest or imply that they hold a medical qualification or a PhD. If the title is used, the veterinary surgeon should use it in conjunction with their name and either the descriptor 'veterinary surgeon' or the postnominal letters 'MRCVS'.

The guidance is available as part of supporting guidance chapter 23 to the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons, and can be read online at www.rcvs.org.uk/advertising (see paragraphs 23.6-23.8).

Veterinary surgeons may start using the title straight away; details about how their RCVS Register entry can be updated will be issued over the coming months.

The RCVS has announced that this year, for the first time, it will accept debit card payments from veterinary surgeons who are renewing their registration.

The annual renewal fee should be paid by 31 March. Those who have not paid by 30 April will be charged an extra £35 to renew their registration while those who have not paid by 31 May will be removed from the Register.

Corrie McCann, RCVS Director of Operations, said: "Following feedback from the profession, this year, thanks to a change in our registration regulations, we are able to accept debit card payments which we hope will make the renewal process much easier and more convenient for our members. Furthermore, members will also no longer be charged if they choose to pay their fee by credit card."

Veterinary surgeons will also need to confirm their registration details (including their correspondence and registration addresses), confirm that they have met the RCVS requirement for continuing professional development of 105 hours over a three-year period and disclose any new or previously undisclosed convictions, cautions or adverse findings.

Another change is that vets will now have the choice of either home or work as their registered address (in the past, only work addresses were allowed).

The annual renewal can be completed by returning the form that has been sent by post or by logging into the 'My Account' area of the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/login) using the security details that have been sent to all MsRCVS.

Any members who have not received their annual renewal form or security details for the 'My Account' area should contact the RCVS Registration Department on 020 7202 0707 or registration@rcvs.org.uk as soon as possible.

Those with queries about paying the annual renewal fee should contact the RCVS Finance Team on 020 7202 0733 or finance@rcvs.org.uk

The RCVS has announced a total of £1 million funding to address mental health and wellbeing within the veterinary profession over the next five years.

The RCVS Operational Board has agreed £100K of funding for the first year of the Mind Matters initiative, with a view to a similar amount per year for the subsequent four years.

Additionally, the College says it intends to contribute approximately £500K over the next five years to the Veterinary Surgeons' Health Support Programme (VSHSP). This is a continuation of previous funding, effectively doubling the College's contribution. The VSHSP, independently run by the Veterinary Benevolent Fund, offers a confidential service that aims to combat problems with alcohol, drugs, eating disorders and other addictive and mental health issues.
 
Neil Smith, Mind Matters' Chair said: "I am delighted that we have £500K of new funding over the next five years to dedicate to improving the mental health and wellbeing of the veterinary team, together with the increase to our support for the VSHSP. It shows the College's commitment in this vital area, and is a substantial amount that will really help change lives."

The funding will be reviewed annually as part of the RCVS budgeting process.

Mind Matters activities will fall into five streams:

• Learning and understanding best practice - research within the veterinary profession, for example, into occupational stress factors; and among other related professions and private and public sector organisations that have successfully tackled similar issues.
• Changing the culture - a programme of communications activities to help generate a positive environment for discussion, reduce stigma, increase awareness and the ability to identify risks, and encourage help-seeking behaviour.
• Intervention: personal level - financial and other support for existing services, such as Vet Helpline and Veterinary Surgeons Health Support Programme, together with an investigation into what more may be required to support those in need.
• Intervention: supporting the supporters - training and guidance for those who may be working or living with someone who needs assistance, in order to help supporters spot and understand signs of stress and mental illness, and help the person seek expert help.
• Making changes - working closely with the joint RCVS/British Veterinary Association Vet Futures project (www.vetfutures.org.uk) to help identify aspects of how the profession is structured and run (from student to retirement) that exacerbate stress and mental health problems - and consider how they may be addressed.

Mind Matters is supported by a taskforce comprising the Veterinary Benevolent Fund, the British Veterinary Association, the British Veterinary Nursing Association, the Veterinary Practice Management Association, the Veterinary Schools Council, the Veterinary Defence Society, the Society of Practising Veterinary Surgeons and the Association of Veterinary Students.