Following issues with the implementation and associated costs of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' database (iMIS), independent IT specialists TFX Consulting Ltd have reported on both the implementation project and the long-term suitability of the database for the College's needs.

The TFX iMIS Report highlights inadequacies in the procurement process for the IT system, especially with regard to the drafting of the original brief. The Report suggests that this led to differing expectations from the College and ASI, the company licensing and assisting with the implementation of the software, in terms of the detail and complexity of the project.

Although TFX says it believes the iMIS system to be suitable for the finance functionality required, it is critical of its ability to support some other RCVS data structures, and considers it is a poor fit for the complex registration and education functions of the College. The Report writers note that the RCVS continues to fulfil its statutory duties in terms of fee collection and the maintenance of registration records.

The key recommendations of the Report are that the RCVS continues to work with the iMIS database in the immediate future, particularly with regard to core functions, but that a new partner is sought for ongoing support of the system. Thereafter, the Report recommends that a plan is put in place to migrate away from the system over a period of two to three years, as part of a natural upgrade path for RCVS IT systems.

As part of this programme, TFX recommends that a detailed analysis exercise is required, with the objective of more completely defining the College's complex requirements.

This is the second of two reports prepared by TFX; the first reviewed the College's technology more generally. The Technology Report provided valuable advice in areas of network security, staged replacement of legacy hardware and a coherent software and licensing programme, with associated staff training. 

The TFX iMIS Report can be downloaded from http://www.rcvs.org.uk/TFX

The TFX Technology Report will not be published, as it concerns issues relating to security of the College's IT infrastructure.

RCVS President Jerry Davies said: "We are grateful to TFX Consulting, and Ben Murray in particular, for the depth and clarity of both of their reports. It has been very useful to have independent scrutiny of the iMIS project and our IT systems as a whole.

"Lessons can be - and have been - learned. For example, new project management protocols have been introduced by the College, and the instigation of an Audit and Risk Committee has been agreed".

Council accepted the findings of the Report at its recent meeting, and the new Chief Executive and Secretary, Nick Stace, will consider how the recommendations are best implemented, when he takes up his post in September 2012.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against a Kent veterinary surgeon convicted of tail-docking and also charged with misleadingly altering an owner's record relating to tail dockings.

At the outset of the four-day hearing, David Smith, of Lakeview Veterinary Centre, Deal, admitted he had been convicted of an offence of tail docking on 14 December 2010 at the Channel Magistrates Court.

He said that, in 2008, he had misinterpreted the legislation about tail docking and as a result had removed the tails of a litter of 13 Rottweiler puppies. He was subsequently convicted of illegal docking.

Mr Smith also accepted he had altered the owner's record, at the owner's request, when the RSPCA was investigating the circumstances of the docking by adding the words "for law enforcement", but maintained this alteration was to clarify the record to which he had initially added the words "for security selection"; he denied any attempt to mislead, or that he ought to have known it may mislead.

The Committee accepted that Mr Smith misinterpreted the legislation and had taken some steps to satisfy himself that the tail docking was legal, namely: he had asked an employee colleague to make enquires of the College and, as advised, he had downloaded a copy of the AWA 2006 to read and to make his own decision with regard to legality; some enquiry had been made by the practice of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) at Reigate; and, Mr Smith had himself researched dog breeds on the Kennel Club website.

The Committee also accepted that he had asked and been told that the client had previously supplied dogs to the police.

However, the Committee found that these steps were inadequate; in particular, he should have contacted the College and Defra himself and not delegated this to administrative staff. Furthermore, that he should have obtained confirmation of the advice given in writing.

Regarding the alteration of the owner's record, the Committee was satisfied that this annotation was added for clarification. The Committee was not satisfied that the addition 'for law enforcement' altered the meaning of what was already stated on this form, and found the wording confirmed Mr Smith's misapprehension at the time of the legality of the tail docking.

This charge, which alleged that the alteration had been carried out misleadingly, was dismissed. 

The Committee also said that Mr Smith's reluctance to engage with the police and the RSPCA during their later investigation had been regrettable: as a professional he had had a duty to co-operate fully. However, it concluded that this had been "of little probative significance".

The Committee would like to make it clear that it is the responsibility of every practising veterinary surgeon to ensure that tail docking is legal in each and every instance before carrying out the procedure. If there is any doubt, then tail docking should not take place.

In deciding whether Mr Smith was fit to practise, the Committee took into account two previous RCVS Disciplinary Committee findings involving tail-docking.

It concluded these were significantly different. In the first case, the respondent knew that the tail docking he had carried out was illegal. On the contrary Mr Smith had misguidedly believed the docking he carried out was permitted.

In the second case there had been several charges, in addition to the charge of tail docking.  In this case no charges other than those related to tail docking had been alleged against Mr Smith.

It further noted that no issues of clinical competence were raised, and that the dockings were undertaken less than 12 months after the new legislation came into force. 

Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Vice-Chairman Beverley Cottrell, who chaired the hearing, said: "The Committee has expressed its disapproval about Mr Smith's failure to make adequate investigations of the College and of Defra, and his erroneous interpretation of the Act. 

"In reaching its decision, the Committee has paid particular attention to issues of animal welfare, maintaining public confidence in the profession and the upholding of proper standards of conduct.

It has concluded that Mr Smith's conduct fell short of that to be expected of a veterinary surgeon but does not consider that it fell far short." 

After directing that the case should be dismissed, Mrs Cottrell added: "The Committee would like to make it clear that it is the responsibility of every practising veterinary surgeon to ensure that tail docking is legal in each and every instance before carrying out the procedure. If there is any doubt, then tail docking should not take place."

The RCVS has announced that its former President, Professor Sandy Trees, will be appointed to the House of Lords as a non-party-political (cross-bench) peer, following recommendation by the House of Lords Appointments Commission.

Professor Trees, who was President of the RCVS in 2009-2010, has served on the College Council for 12 years. He becomes only the second veterinary surgeon to take a seat in the House of Lords, joining Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior.

Professor Trees said: "This is a great honour, and a wonderful opportunity. I look forward to the prospect of ensuring that legislation relating to animal health and welfare is fit for purpose, but I also feel that veterinary surgeons have a great deal to offer society more broadly, and I will relish the opportunity of raising the profile of the profession and what it can contribute.

"Beyond the immediate veterinary sphere, my areas of experience include science, the environment, education, middle eastern politics and tropical medicine, so I hope to be able to contribute to the work of the House of Lords on many fronts." 

Dr Jerry Davies, RCVS President, said: "I am delighted to hear that Professor Sandy Trees has been appointed to the House of Lords. I know that he will not only represent the profession on all matters of veterinary science, veterinary education, animal welfare and public health, but as a cross-bencher, he will also bring a breadth of experience to bear on issues outside the immediate interests of our profession. He is a well informed and articulate advocate of whom the profession can be rightly proud."

The BVA also welcomed the appointment. BVA President Carl Padgett said: "The British Veterinary Association is absolutely delighted at Professor Trees' appointment to the House of Lords. He will bring a wealth of experience and scientific expertise into the political arena, not only in the fields of animal health and welfare but also public health, where he has particular knowledge and experience.

"We are pleased that the value of veterinary input in legislative debate has been recognised by the Appointments Commission.

"We are also proud that Professor Trees will be formally opening this September's BVA Congress in Liverpool where he inspired two generations of vets through his teaching and research, and we look forward to working with him to deliver a healthy future for animals, vets and the country."

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has announced the results of the RCVS Council and Veterinary Nurse Council elections.

A record number of candidates stood in the RCVS Council election this year, and the results were much closer than usual.

Two candidates entirely new to the Council have been elected, one of whom - Amanda Boag - received the highest number of votes. The other - Chris Barker - also did well, coming in third place overall.

Three existing RCVS Council Members have been re-elected for a further four years, and Stephen May, who was formerly an appointed Council Member from the Royal Veterinary College, was also voted onto Council for the first time.

Of the three candidates standing for election to VN Council, one existing Member - Kathy Kissick - has been returned, and one new member - Elizabeth Figg - has been elected.

All successful candidates will take up or resume their seats at RCVS Day on 6 July 2012.

Turnouts for both elections remained low, with just 3,625 veterinary surgeons (15.1%) and 743 veterinary nurses (7.5%) choosing to exercise their right to vote.

By comparison, in 2011 voting figures were 3,887 (15.9%) and 723 (7.6%), respectively.

Veterinary surgeons' and veterinary nurses' use of online and text voting, rather than postal voting, increased again this year from 25% to 30.6%, and 12.9% to 20%, respectively.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed charges of serious professional misconduct against a veterinary surgeon and former employee of Medivet (Watford).

Tomasz Nazimek, who qualified in Poland in 2001 before starting work in England in 2005, was alleged to have charged for the use of a blood pressure monitor during an exploratory laparotomy on a cat called Mitzi, whilst working at the Watford branch of Medivet in June 2009, when he knew, or ought to have known, it had not been used.

Despite his previous signed statements to the contrary, Mr Nazimek admitted at the outset of the hearing that no blood pressure monitor had in fact been used.

Accordingly, the Committee only had to establish whether Mr Nazimek himself had entered the fee for its use into Mitzi's records and, if so, whether this was done dishonestly.

The alleged incident came to light as a result of a covert investigation into Medivet conducted by the television production company Fulcrum TV in 2008/9, and subsequently commissioned by the BBC and broadcast in July 2010 as part of the Panorama programme 'It Shouldn't Happen at a Vets''.

Former dental nurse Alexandra Lee was employed by Fulcrum TV as an undercover reporter to work as a 'trainee veterinary nurse' at Medivet, in order to record audio and video footage of her experiences there.

The case against Mr Nazimek was based partly on a conversation overheard by Miss Lee following the operation on Mitzi, where she maintained that Guy Carter, a senior Medivet partner and veterinary surgeon, told Mr Nazimek (who was sitting at the practice computer typing up Mitzi's records) not to forget to include a fee for use of the blood pressure monitor.

However, Miss Lee's equipment had not recorded this exchange, due to a fault, and her video diary of that day's events was not put in evidence before the Committee. Miss Lee also accepted in evidence that she had not actually seen who entered the fee into the records, but had assumed it was Mr Nazimek.

Despite giving serious consideration to all of Miss Lee's evidence, the Committee found it of limited value.

The Committee considered the statements signed by Mr Nazimek, but prepared for him by the Medivet senior management in December 2009 and October 2010, which stated that he had used the monitor, consulted Mr Carter about charging for it and then added the fee himself.

The Committee also considered a third statement provided to the College (September 2011), in which Mr Nazimek recalled that Mr Carter had priced up the operation himself, but not asked for his input.

When questioned about the discrepancies in his statements, Mr Nazimek told the Committee that he had confused different operations and now knew his earlier statements to be wrong.

He indicated that he had been under pressure from his then employers to sign the statements, that his attempts to change them were ignored by Medivet's managing partners and that he was depressed and under stress at the time.

He was not told that the statements could be in relation to charges against him, or that he was entitled to legal advice when discussing them with his employers.

The Committee found Mr Nazimek's oral evidence to be persuasive, his manner open and his responses under cross-examination frank.

In the absence of satisfactory and reliable evidence to the contrary, and in view of supportive testimonials provided from his current employer and former colleagues as to his honesty and integrity, the Committee found Mr Nazimek's repeated assertion that he did not make a charge for the monitor "entirely plausible" and believed that he told the truth.

Nevertheless, the Committee emphasised that a charge for the monitor had been entered into the records when no such device had been used, which it regarded as unacceptable.

Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Chairman Professor Peter Lees said: "The Committee is not satisfied by the evidence so that it is sure that [Mr Nazimek] entered into the records for Mitzi a charge for the blood pressure monitor. [It] believes that [Mr Nazimek] told the truth when giving his evidence and the character references support his honesty.

"In these circumstances, it is not necessary to consider the charges further and the allegations against [Mr Nazimek] are dismissed."

The Veterinary Nurses Council of the RCVS is seeking nominations from veterinary surgeons and VNs for its Golden Jubilee award by 8 May 2012.

The award recognises an exceptional contribution made to the veterinary nursing profession and/or a positive contribution to animal welfare. The Golden Jubilee award was inaugurated to mark the 50^th anniversary of veterinary nurse training, in 2011, and the first award was presented to Jean Turner in 2011 for her lifetime contribution to veterinary nursing.

Liz Branscombe, Chairman of the VN Council said: "This is a prestigious award and a great opportunity to recognise someone who has made a positive impact on our profession.

"VN Council feels strongly that the award should be accessible to a wide spectrum of individuals, so nominees could come from veterinary nurses or veterinary surgeons involved in clinical practice, research, teaching or politics - in fact, any aspect of veterinary nursing."

Both veterinary surgeons and VNs are eligible to make nominations, or to be nominated for the Golden Jubilee award; nominations should be received by 8 May 2012. More information, together with the nomination form, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/jubileeaward.

The award will be presented at RCVS Day on 6 July 2012.

The RCVS has restored its full approval to the University of Bristol's School of Veterinary Science.

The full approval was granted by the RCVS Council in March, at the recommendation of the Education Policy and Specialisation Committee (EPSC), following the positive report of a visitation carried out in mid-December 2011 under the chairmanship of former RCVS President Stephen Ware.

The School had been under conditional approval since a visit in March 2007, and a subsequent revisit in October 2009 had identified that although progress had been made, work still needed to be completed to improve some of the facilities, particularly in small animal surgery and on the farm. 

The RCVS Council commended the hard work and improvements displayed by the School, and was pleased to restore it to full approval status. 

Professor Stuart Reid, EPSC Chairman said: "The University has demonstrated a welcome and continued commitment to the development of the School, and is to be congratulated on making  significant financial investments in staffing and facilities, despite the current difficult economic climate.

"There is a positive and constructive atmosphere, which is a credit to the Head of School and all the staff who have clearly worked extremely hard to meet the challenges presented to them at a time of change within the university sector as a whole."

The School is next scheduled for a full visitation in 2014.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed an application for restoration to the RCVS Register from Dr Janos Nemeth, who was struck off in 2009 for fraudulent registration.

This was Dr Nemeth's second unsuccessful restoration application, and the Committee said it would hear no further application unless the Committee Chairman, advised by the Legal Assessor, considered it to have a reasonable prospect of success.

At the original hearing on the 23rd February 2009, Dr Nemeth, who had practised in the Wokingham area of Berkshire, was found to have dishonestly entered his name in the RCVS Register. Although he held a veterinary science degree from the Szent István University in Budapest, he had included a forged document in his registration application. He lodged an appeal with the Privy Council the following month, but did not pursue it; the appeal was dismissed in September 2009 and his name was removed from the Register. Dr Nemeth was ordered to pay costs of £8,904.59, which remain outstanding.

In September 2010, he applied to the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for restoration of his name to the RCVS Register, denying that he had produced a fraudulent document. In refusing the application, the then-Committee told Dr Nemeth that it had no appellate jurisdiction and that the onus was on him to demonstrate that he was a fit and proper person, before his name could be restored. It advised him generally about a future application for restoration.

At this week's restoration hearing, Dr Nemeth told the Committee that he did accept the original findings of the Committee but, at the same time, told them again that he was not party to the forgery. He also said that he held a licence to practise from the Hungarian Veterinary Chamber, and had been employed since October 2011 as a veterinary surgeon in a small animal hospital in Budapest, where he carried out a wide range of work including surgery. He also said he had attended two CPD courses. 

The Committee accepted this. However, it continued to be concerned about the absence of evidence. Dr Nemeth had not produced evidence of CPD undertaken or provided letters of support from employers or colleagues, to give comfort to the assertion that he should be permitted to practise in the UK. The Committee rejected Dr Nemeth's argument that his licence to practise in Hungary meant he did not need to do this. 

Committee Chairman Professor Peter Lees said: "The Committee is disappointed by Dr Nemeth's continuing lack of insight and is satisfied that he has paid insufficient attention to the guidance given at the previous restoration hearing. The burden remains on him to satisfy this Committee that he is a fit and proper person, before his name can be restored to the Register."

The application was dismissed.

Colonel Neil Smith has been elected Vice-President of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. He takes up office at RCVS Day on 6 July 2012.

Neil graduated from the Royal Veterinary College in 1989, and was commissioned into the Royal Army Veterinary Corps (RAVC) with the intention of staying for four years. Twenty-two years later, he is now the Director Army Veterinary and Remount Services, effectively the Chief Veterinary Officer for the Army and head of the RAVC, which currently has over 35 Veterinary Officers.

He has held a mixture of clinical, staff and command positions, and has worked in the UK, US and Germany. He has Masters' Degrees in Food Science, Defence Administration and Defence Studies. He has also worked part-time in small animal practice (including the Blue Cross, of which he is now a Trustee), and was heavily involved in the Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak in 2001.

First elected to Council in 2004, Neil was re-elected in 2010 after a short break. He has served on Education, Advisory, Preliminary Investigation and Planning and Resources Committees, and on VN Council (currently Vice-Chairman and Chairman of the Awarding Body).

He has also previously been President of the RVC Student Union Society, the RVC Alumnus Association, Southern Counties, and the Association of Government Veterinarians. He is currently a Council member of the Central Veterinary Society, and has previously sat on the BVA's Veterinary Policy Group.

Neil said: "I am honoured to have been elected as the next Vice-President. The College is about to go through some significant organisational changes, not least because of the proposed legislative reform order. However, I aim to ensure that we remain focused on our primary role in safeguarding the health and welfare of animals committed to veterinary care. The functions of the RCVS are quite diverse, and I am keen that we try to enhance both the profession's and the public's understanding of our remit, including our responsibility for educational, ethical and clinical standards."

Jacqui Molyneux has been confirmed as President, and Dr Jerry Davies as Vice-President, effective July 2012.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against an Essex-based veterinary surgeon, having found him not guilty of charges relating to the measurement of horses and ponies.

At the ten-day hearing, Marc Auerbach of Oak Equine Veterinary Surgery, Ongar, answered charges relating to measuring the height of 29 horses/ponies presented for measurement by two agents in early 2009. Dr Auerbach had undertaken these measurements as an Official Measurer (OM) for the Joint Measuring Board (JMB), which provides a system for independently measuring and certifying the size of competition horses/ponies. An animal's financial value relates to its size, with larger animals being more likely to win in their competitive class.

The case centred on the expected accuracy of such measurements, whether Dr Auerbach was dishonest in colluding with the agents, or whether there had been signs of malpractice which a reasonably competent vet acting as an OM ought to detect.

From evidence submitted, the Committee determined a margin for measurement accuracy, and consequently dismissed from its consideration ten animals where the difference between the initial measurement and the re-measurement was 3 cm or less. However, the College submitted that the average difference was so great that, either, Dr Auerbach had failed to take sufficient steps to ensure that the correct measurements were recorded, or else he had been dishonest. Dr Auerbach's Counsel accepted the inference that presenting agents were dishonest, but denied that Dr Auerbach was dishonest or had failed to pick up signs of malpractice on the part of the agents.

The Committee was of the view that there may be unscrupulous presenters capable of materially interfering with the height of horses. While it was unable to determine with certainty the extent to which it could be done, the Committee formed the view that unscrupulous interference (together with intrinsic variables) could have caused the differences between measurement and re-measurement in the 19 horses.

The Committee noted there was no evidence of improper payments being received by anyone. It also accepted evidence that Dr Auerbach was not a dishonest man, taking into account his record of 23 years of honesty and excellence in the profession, unchallenged character references and the lack of any credible motive for him to act dishonestly.

Next, the Committee considered whether there had been signs of preparation malpractice which ought to have been picked up by any reasonably competent veterinary surgeon acting as an OM. The College submitted that Dr Auerbach had failed to take several steps including the amount of time and attention given to the animals he measured, and whether they might be drugged or sedated.

The Committee concluded from the evidence, including scientific papers, that mildly sedated animals may not be distinguishable from properly prepared animals; well-behaved horses were not an indication that something was amiss. The Committee accepted that Dr Auerbach took around 15-20 minutes to measure each of the horses presented on 9 January; and, in the absence of guidance from the JMB, it could not conclude this was rushed or unreasonable. Consequently, the Committee was unable to be satisfied, so that it was sure, that the allegation of failure to take sufficient steps to ensure the recording of correct measurements was proved.

"Accordingly, the decision of the Committee is that the facts set out in the Charge in relation to all the horses and ponies listed have not been proved to the necessary standard of proof," said Prof Peter Lees, speaking on behalf of the Committee as he directed the charges be dismissed.

The RCVS is reminding veterinary surgeons and nurses that there is one week left till the deadline for nominations for the 2012 RCVS and RCVS VN Council elections.

Nominations must be made in writing on the prescribed form and received by the RCVS on or before 31 January 2012.

Prospective candidates need to provide the signatures and registered/listed addresses of two proposers, and should also submit a short biography, manifesto and photograph for inclusion in the RCVS News Extra election specials.

Nobody may nominate more than one candidate, and no current member of the RCVS Council or VN Council may make a nomination.

Full details and guidance notes for both elections are available online from the RCVS Council Election page (www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil12) and VN Council Election page (www.rcvs.org.uk/vncouncil12).

Nomination forms and candidate information forms for RCVS Council may also be requested from Mrs Gabriella Braun (020 7202 0761 or executiveoffice@rcvs.org.uk) and those for VN Council from Mrs Annette Amato (020 7202 0713 or a.amato@rcvs.org.uk).

Six seats on RCVS Council and two on VN Council are due to be filled in the 2012 elections.

Those elected will take their seats on RCVS Day in July, to serve four-year terms, and will be expected to spend at least six to eight days a year attending Council meetings, working parties and subcommittees (a loss-of-earnings allowance is available).

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended a Co. Tyrone veterinary surgeon from the Register for ten months, having found him guilty of serious professional misconduct relating to three convictions for contravening animal export regulations.

Whilst working as an Authorised Veterinary Inspector in Castlederg for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD), William Manson had falsely certified that he had inspected three consignments of sheep presented for assembly at Plumbridge Export Assembly Centre on 16 and 23 August 2009. At this week's two-day hearing, Mr Manson admitted that the convictions he had received at the Strabane Magistrates Court on 26 November 2010 made him unfit to practise veterinary surgery, but said in mitigation that he had examined the sheep nearby at Landahussy, a site he considered more suitable for a large number of animals.

The Committee was satisfied that Mr Manson believed the Landahussy site to be more suitable for large deliveries; the Committee also was satisfied that he did carry out a visual inspection of the sheep at the Landahussy site on 16 and 23 August 2009. However, the information Mr Manson provided on the three certificates was false and misleading. Mr Manson had also been reminded of the importance of complying with government regulations in a disciplinary case in 2004, following convictions for failing to notify DARD about changes in the number of sheep for which he was claiming a premium. The then Committee dismissed the case, deeming the convictions a result of his "genuine but regrettable oversight".

Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Chairman, Prof Peter Lees said: "Mr Manson's actions in certifying that he had examined the sheep at an approved assembly centre when he had not done so amounted to a serious departure from professional standards. If there had been a disease outbreak on either the Plumbridge or Landahussy site, such actions would have rendered contact tracings unreliable and inaccurate."

In mitigation, the Committee accepted medical evidence and Mr Manson's testimony that he was at that time under exceptional stress. He was working long hours in difficult circumstances without an assistant, and was under considerable personal pressure as a result of his wife's serious illness. It also took into account his age (66), exceptional testimonials produced on his behalf, and the impact on the community he served.

Prof Lees said: "The Committee has concluded that the removal of Mr Manson's name from the Register is neither proportionate nor necessary in the public interest nor to protect the welfare of animals. A proportionate sanction in this case is to suspend Mr Manson's name from the Register for a period of ten months."