The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed that a veterinary surgeon from Berkshire be removed from the Register, following his administration of a prohibited substance to a racehorse and his subsequent attempts to conceal his actions.
At a six-day hearing that concluded yesterday, James Main, a partner in the O'Gorman, Slater, Main & Partners veterinary practice in Newbury, and former lead veterinary surgeon to racehorse trainer Nicky Henderson, faced four charges of serious professional misconduct concerning his treatment of Moonlit Path, a six-year-old mare owned by The Queen.
Three of the charges related to Mr Main breaching British Horseracing Authority (BHA) rules by injecting Moonlit Path with tranexamic acid (TA) on the day she was due to race; the fourth charge related to his dishonest concealment of this treatment in his practice clinical records. Nicky Henderson had himself faced a BHA Inquiry into this case in 2009 and subsequently been sanctioned.
The Committee heard that on 18 February 2009, Mr Henderson's yard requested a veterinary surgeon attend Moonlit Path to administer an injection of Dycenene the following morning. The injection was requested as the mare was prone to exercise-induced pulmonary haemorrhage. Mr Main attended on the morning of 19 February and injected the horse with intravenous tranexamic acid. Moonlit Path raced at Huntingdon later that day, along with the eventual winner, and favourite, Ravello Bay - another horse trained by Mr Henderson. Moonlit Path finished sixth and a urine sample taken from her after the race tested positive for TA.
Of the four charges, Mr Main admitted injecting Moonlit Path with TA on the day she was due to race when he knew this breached the BHA's rule prohibiting any substance other than the horse's usual feed and water being given on race day. However, Mr Main denied knowing that, if tested, a horse would test positive for TA (thereby imposing a strict liability on the trainer); he denied administering a prohibited substance to a horse with the intention to affect that horse's racing performance; and, he denied dishonestly concealing the TA injection by omitting it from his clinical records and referring to it as a 'pre-race check'.
The Committee heard and carefully considered evidence from Mr Henderson and his employees, from BHA investigating officers and its Director of Equine Science and Welfare, from an expert equine physiologist and from Mr Main himself. In its findings, the Committee stated it was "unimpressed by Mr Henderson's evidence and surprised by his apparent lack of knowledge of the rules of racing".
Whilst the Committee accepted Mr Main believed at the time that Moonlit Path would not test positive for TA, it considered he failed to fully inform himself of the medicinal product he was using; especially so as TA does not possess a Marketing Authorisation as a veterinary medicinal product. In so doing, he did not meet his professional obligation to provide Mr Henderson with the information and advice he needed.
The Committee concluded that TA was a prohibited substance and, whilst accepting that Mr Main's concern had solely been for Moonlit Path's welfare, he had actually breached BHA rules by affecting her performance through administering such a substance.
Finally, the Committee found that Mr Main had deliberately concealed the TA injection to Moonlit Path by describing it in his notes as a 'pre-race check' - a protocol developed over several years between the practice and Mr Henderson. Such inaccurate clinical records were in breach of the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct and led the Committee to conclude he had acted dishonestly. The Committee also found Mr Main "did not act with candour" by claiming to have administered the TA injection the day before the race. On questioning by the Legal Assessor, however, he admitted that he had known that Moonlit Path was racing the same day that he administered the injection.
Professor Sheila Crispin, chairing the Committee, said: "[We] regard it as wholly unacceptable practice that a veterinary surgeon should be party to serious breaches of rules of another regulatory body in the field of animal welfare ... and which go to the very integrity of racing.
"Whilst the findings relate to a single incident, [we] are satisfied that Mr Main's actions amounted to pre-meditated misconduct ... It is highly relevant that Mr Main held positions of responsibility within the racing industry where he was required to uphold the rules and standards of the profession," she added.
Noting Mr Main's "long and hitherto unblemished career as a highly respected equine veterinary surgeon", the Committee accepted Mr Main's evidence that the reason for the administration of tranexamic acid was solely his concern about the welfare of the horse. Nevertheless, it found his evidence was "evasive, lacking in candour and on some aspects of the case his evidence was untrue".
Professor Crispin concluded: "...proven dishonesty has been held to come at the top end of the spectrum of gravity of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect ... Having considered carefully all the mitigation put forward on Mr Main's behalf, [we] have concluded that Mr Main's behaviour was wholly unacceptable and so serious that removal of his name from the Register is required."
The RCVS is looking to recruit two veterinary surgeons as part-time Postgraduate Deans, to help oversee new veterinary graduates during their Professional Development Phase (PDP).
Freda Andrews, RCVS Head of Education said: "The PDP is an online recording system to guide new graduates as they work towards achieving the "year one competences" - the competences expected of a new graduate who's had about a year's experience in practice. Postgraduate Deans monitor PDP participants' progress and respond to their queries, and ultimately sign-off the graduates once their PDP is complete."
The roles have become available as two of the current post-holders, Stephen Ware and Professor David Noakes, wish to hand over to new colleagues. Both Stephen and David have served as Postgraduate Deans since 2007, when the PDP first became a requirement for all new veterinary graduates.
Stephen said: "Being a Postgraduate Dean gives you the opportunity to assist new graduates in the early stages of their career. It is also a way to encourage employers to take a responsible attitude towards new vets, particularly during their first job or two."
Postgraduate Deans are expected to spend up to 20 days a year working mainly online from home, and attend occasional meetings at the RCVS in London. They need experience of general practice, and to be used to dealing with and advising students, or employing and supporting new graduates. A sympathetic understanding of the challenges faced by newly qualified veterinary graduates is also required.
Further information about the role can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/jobs, and information about the PDP, including a preview, at www.rcvs.org.uk/pdp.
Applicants should send a brief CV, and a covering letter setting out their relevant experience, to education@rcvs.org.uk by 7 March 2011.
A petition to protect the title Veterinary Nurse has received an impressive 1,285 signatures, including many from veterinary surgeons, and an official response from HM Government.
The petition, which was started by VetNurse.co.uk member Nick Shackleton Dip AVN (Surgical) VN on 6th June last year, explained: "The title veterinary nurse at present is not a protected title. A lot of people who work in practice call them selves veterinary nurses, when they have no theoretical training in such a position. As qualified nurses we feel that this issue should be addressed so that the general public are no longer confused as to the qualification and hopefully make them more aware of the hard work it is to gain the qualification. As we are heading for autonomy within the profession I think it is right and fitting that the title should be protected."
The Government response, whilst predictably noncommittal, did at least seem to recognise the issue: "The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) maintains the Statutory List of veterinary nurses. In order to qualify, nurses must undergo a two-year period of vocational training which is assessed at work and through examination by the RCVS Awarding Body.
On being added to the Statutory List they are entitled to undertake a range of veterinary treatments and procedures on animals under veterinary direction. Only listed nurses are entitled to use the post-nominal letters 'VN'. The RCVS are introducing new arrangements for 'registered' veterinary nurses which provides greater accountability and transparency for those nurses whose names are entered on the register. These arrangements run in parallel with the Statutory List.
Some veterinary practices may employ staff who do not carry out the duties of a veterinary nurse but possibly use that title or wear a uniform which might imply that they are a trained veterinary nurse. We appreciate that there are issues surrounding best practice that the RCVS and the Veterinary Nursing Council to address.
It is generally accepted that the arrangements for regulating veterinary nursing could be modernised. This would, in due course, help provide greater protection for the title of veterinary nurses. Although Defra currently has no plans to undertake a fundamental review of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, we are regularly in touch with the RCVS to better understand its priorities for regulatory reform.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended a veterinary surgeon formerly practising in Southampton for failing to make animal welfare his primary concern.
At a hearing this week, adjourned from September 2010, the Disciplinary Committee heard charges against Michael Albring, formerly of VetCall practice, Bitterne, Southampton. Mr Albring was said to have failed to make a home visit to attend Bear, a Newfoundland dog belonging to Mrs Thacker, when he knew, or ought to have known, that there were clinical or welfare grounds making a home visit necessary.
The hearing was held in Mr Albring's absence; the Committee considered that, having postponed the case last year at his request, Mr Albring had had ample time to prepare his case and submit any mitigations, and sufficient opportunity to attend. Additional adjournment would further delay the matter's resolution and not be in the wider interests of justice, or public confidence in either the RCVS disciplinary system or the veterinary profession.
On the evening of 19 December 2009, Mr Albring had been the veterinary surgeon on duty at VetCall, a practice that provides the out of-hours emergency cover for several local veterinary practices, including the one where Bear was registered. When Mrs Thacker's daughter, Ms Davidson, telephoned VetCall to request a home visit as the dog had collapsed, she was told that it was against practice policy for the practice to be left unmanned so this would not be possible. This was despite a written policy which accepted and made provision for the rare occasions when a home visit would be necessary. Phoning again later, the information about practice policy was repeated and Ms Davidson directed to a local animal ambulance service, which attended.
The ambulance driver found that the dog could not be transported in the ambulance and telephoned VetCall to say a home visit was needed. This was refused by Mr Albring even, the Committee noted, when the ambulance driver offered to collect Mr Albring, drive him to Ms Davidson's home 10-15 minutes away, assist with the euthanasia, and return him to the clinic. In the interim, Ms Davidson had also sought help from a separate practice and, subsequent to Mr Albring's refusal to visit, their on-duty veterinary surgeon attended and euthanased Bear.
The Committee found that Mr Albring's refusal to visit, once it was clear Bear could not be transported, and he knew that a home visit was necessary on welfare grounds, resulted in Bear spending longer than necessary in pain and distress. This was not a case where the pressure of work or the welfare needs of other animals prevented Mr Albring from attending, and it was also relevant that Mr Albring was specifically employed to work out of hours in an emergency clinic. Serious, too, was his failure to reply promptly to communications from the RCVS, or show insight into the seriousness of his conduct.
In mitigation, the Committee accepted that this was an isolated case, and there were no previous findings against Mr Albring. He was in sole charge of an emergency clinic covering 15-20 practices across Southampton and Portsmouth, which would make, in some circumstances, home visits difficult.
Professor Sheila Crispin, chairing the Disciplinary Committee, said: "The Committee is concerned that the actual policy pursued by the clinic regarding domiciliary visits was different to the written one.
"In effect, a no-visits policy existed at the VetCall clinic and this must have added to the pressure under which the Respondent [Mr Albring] was working.
"The Committee is mindful that the object of sanctions is not to be punitive, but to protect animal welfare, to maintain public confidence in the profession and to maintain appropriate standards," she continued, noting that as animal welfare had knowingly been neglected and Mr Albring had demonstrated no insight, a warning or reprimand would not be enough. "A period of suspension would be sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold standards," she said.
The Committee directed that Mr Albring's name be suspended from the RCVS Register of Veterinary Surgeons for ten months.
The RCVS has advised that veterinary surgeons should delegate Schedule 3 work to veterinary nurse students only during students' training, following a series of queries from employers about such students locuming.
Veterinary surgeons have dispensations under Schedule 3 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act to delegate to student veterinary nurses in the course of their training, so that students can learn how to give medical treatments to animals.
Crucially, these dispensations apply only when the student is working as a student in their approved training practice or on a placement organised by their university, and is under the supervision of qualified staff.
These dispensations do not apply to any extra-curricula activity so, if working as locums, they are legally classified as unqualified lay staff
The RCVS is concerned that locum agencies do not always appear to know this and are placing locums in their capacity as students, or even "senior students." This has the potential to mislead employers and the students concerned, and result in illegal practice.
Liz Branscombe, Chairman of the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council said: "We know that student VNs, especially those on university courses, often undertake locum work to supplement their earnings. However, beyond the training practice which employs them, or in a placement organised by their university, they can only carry out tasks that may be expected of an unqualified staff member, and cannot legally undertake Schedule 3 work."
Practices may check the details of a student VN directly with the RCVS or with the student's college. If you notice an agency promoting student VN locums, please contact the RCVS so that we can provide guidance.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has this week directed that the name of a Grimsby veterinary surgeon should be removed from the RCVS Register, having found him guilty of serious professional misconduct for advising and undertaking surgical procedures without sufficient clinical grounds or considering alternative treatment options; failing to obtain the informed consent of his clients; undertaking procedures outside his area of competence; failing to refer or discuss the option of referral to a specialist; and, failing to provide his patients with adequate pain relief.
Mr Joseph Lennox Holmes, of Waltham Veterinary Clinic, Grimsby, faced nine charges relating to two separate complaints, at a two-week hearing in October which resumed this week.
These complaints concerned four consecutive staphylectomies and a tracheostomy that Mr Holmes performed on Jake, a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel owned by Ms Marsden; the dental treatment he gave to three Persian cats called Dream Topping, Charlie Brown and Henry, together with the advice he gave to their owner, Mrs Auckland.
On 25 October 2007, Mr Holmes performed a staphylectomy on Jake during dental surgery. He gave the Committee various reasons why he thought the procedure was necessary; however, the Committee accepted the opinion of two expert witnesses Professor Dan Brockman, a specialist in soft tissue surgery at the Royal Veterinary College, and Mr Andrew Ash, the senior veterinary surgeon at a 17-vet small animal practice, that there were insufficient clinical grounds for such a surgical procedure to be undertaken. The Committee also found Mr Holmes had not adequately considered other treatments, or obtained fully informed consent from Jake's owner for this procedure.
Mr Holmes performed further staphylectomies and a tracheostomy on Jake, a procedure described by Professor Brockman as "by definition, high risk and best performed by a specialist". He did not consider referral, or inform Mrs Marsden that such referral was an option. Nor did he provide sufficient aftercare or pain relief. Following these surgeries, Jake was euthanased .
In the second complaint, Mr Holmes performed dental extractions on two cats, Dream Topping and Henry, and advised removing teeth from a third, Charlie Brown, in October 2008. The Committee, however, accepted the view of expert witness Mr Ash and Dr David Crossley, RCVS Recognised Specialist in Veterinary Dentistry, that the dental extractions performed, and the advice given, were not justified on the available clinical evidence. The Committee also found that Mr Holmes did not discuss alternative treatment options with Mrs Auckland, or obtain her informed consent. In the case of Dream Topping, consent was sought after the cat had been sedated for an unrelated procedure and Mrs Auckland had felt under pressure to consent.
Mr Holmes had also relied on anaesthesia-inducing drugs to provide analgesia for the dental extractions, without any other form of pain relief. The Committee agreed with the expert witnesses that this was wholly inadequate.
The Committee found many aggravating factors in both cases, including actual injury to animals from unnecessary surgery, and a serious breach of the trust in which Mr Holmes' clients had placed in him to make the welfare of their animals his primary consideration. His repeated misconduct had been sustained over a period of time in the face of a previous adverse finding of the Committee in 2006.
It also found that Mr Holmes failed to appreciate when a case was outwith his experience, and had continued his course of action despite Jake's deterioration; he had not considered referral or accepted that others in the profession might know more than he did; in formulating clinical practice and policies, he made no reference to peer-reviewed literature or continued professional development; and, his use of outmoded drugs and medicines intended for human use was of concern, as was his lack of appreciation of the need for adequate pain relief when performing painful surgical procedures.
Towards the end of the hearing, Mr Holmes said in mitigation that he regretted unreservedly any adverse effects that his treatment had had on the animals concerned, and that he now realised that his long history of working alone had allowed him to become professionally isolated, to become over-confident in the value of his own experience and rather "set in his ways".
Having given serious consideration to postponing judgment, subject to undertakings from Mr Holmes, Disciplinary Committee Chairman Mrs Caroline Freedman said: "We are mindful that the sanction which we apply must be proportionate to the nature and extent of the misconduct found proved and must balance the public interests against the interests of the Respondent.
"We are, however, also mindful of Mr Holmes' conduct during the previous 11½ days of the hearing, during which time his every action was vigorously defended and no insight whatsoever was shown."
The Committee also considered suspending Mr Holmes from the Register. "In view of the serious and long-term nature of the conduct found proved in the charges, we do not feel that it is appropriate that Mr Holmes should be permitted to return to the Register without further assessment of his efforts to update his knowledge," said Mrs Freedman, before concluding: "The only appropriate sanction in each case is that the Registrar be directed to remove Mr Holmes' name from the Register."
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended a Kent veterinary surgeon from the Register for eight months after he was found guilty of dishonest certification.
At the outset of the hearing held on 14/15 December, Takeshi Okano, of Lakeview Veterinary Centre in Deal, Kent, admitted charges that, whilst acting as Official Veterinarian, he had signed a number of certificates when he knew that did not have all the information needed to do so.
On 23 June 2009, Mr Okano had been asked to act as Official Veterinarian to examine four horses and sign the certificates necessary for their export to the USA. The certificates required Mr Okano to certify he had received a written declaration from the owners that the animals had been in the UK for 60 days previously. Mr Okano also signed certificates indicating that the horses had only been in France, Ireland, or the UK for the same 60-day period. Despite having received no such declarations, and having no information whatsoever of where the horses had been, Mr Okano signed the certificates. At the hearing, no explanation for Mr Okano's actions was offered.
Mrs Beverley Cottrell, Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee said: "The validity of any certificate is an integral part of the system relating to the export or import of animals. At Section G of the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct, emphasis is given to the importance of certification, the importance of the signature and the guidance issued by DEFRA. These provisions are well known to the profession."
The Committee was satisfied that Mr Okano's actions in signing the certificates without the owners' declarations amounted to a serious departure from professional standards. In reaching a decision on sanction, it considered that, whilst a reprimand or warning would not be appropriate, neither would removing Mr Okano's name from the Register be proportionate, or necessary either in the public interest or to protect animals.
"Mr Okano is a young veterinary surgeon at the start of his career, who from the outset admitted his actions," said Mrs Cottrell noting that the testimonials from veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and clients, and his record of Continuing Professional Development demonstrated his commitment to high standards within the profession. "In reaching this decision, we have paid particular regard to the fact the false certification was neither persistent nor concealed, nor was he a senior veterinary surgeon."
The Committee directed Mr Okano's name be suspended from the Register for eight months.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has postponed judgment on sanction for 12 months in the case of a Hampshire veterinary surgeon found guilty of serious professional misconduct for cumulative failures to provide adequate professional care, and insufficient regard for animal welfare whilst treating a dog.
At a hearing which concluded last Thursday, Peter Ardle MacMahon MRCVS faced a six-part charge after working as a locum for Vets Now at North End in Portsmouth where, on the night of 14/15 July 2009, he treated Wilfred, a Cocker Spaniel who had ingested broken glass along with raw mince.
The Committee found that, having decided that surgery was an appropriate treatment, Mr MacMahon had not removed the glass identified on a radiograph. Nor had he even superficially searched the stomach contents he had evacuated to check that a large piece of glass he had previously identified on the radiograph had been removed. He had also not taken adequate steps to prevent contamination of Wilfred's abdominal cavity prior to the incision to the stomach.
Mr MacMahon admitted he knew there had been considerable spillage of stomach contents into Wilfred's abdomen. The Committee found that, with this knowledge, for Mr MacMahon to use only 250ml of fluid to lavage the abdomen was inadequate. This contributed to the Spaniel developing chemical peritonitis which might have developed into septic peritonitis but for a second operation the next morning, after the dog had been returned to the care of his usual veterinary practice. The Committee also expressed concern that Mr MacMahon had failed to effectively communicate the abdominal contamination to Wilfred's usual vets when he was handed back into their care.
Taken as individual allegations, these would not, in the opinion of the Committee, constitute serious professional misconduct. However, the Committee was of the view that, taken cumulatively, the charges were proved, and therefore the treatment given to Wilfred, fell far short of the standard to be expected in the profession.
When considering mitigating and aggravating factors, the Committee accepted that Mr MacMahon and the veterinary nurse assisting him were unfamiliar with the premises in which they were working, resulting in a difficulty in locating important equipment, and there were also multiple urgent cases during the evening the operation took place. The Committee also noted that 17 months had passed since the operation, and no further complaints against Mr MacMahon had been received by the RCVS.
The Committee further took into account that Mr MacMahon had little recent experience, having returned to practising veterinary medicine in January 2009, following almost ten years spent outside the veterinary profession. During this hiatus he undertook no continuing professional development (CPD), and completed only a five-week period of supervised practice prior to re-entering the profession.
Mrs Caroline Freedman, Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee said: "The Respondent placed himself in this situation: he knew that he had been out of practice for ten years, had not done any formal CPD during that time and chose to accept an appointment to work as a locum in a sole-charge out-of-hours emergency clinic. A foremost aggravating factor is that animal welfare was adversely affected. A non-critical patient was placed at risk by the Respondent's failures."
The Committee reiterated that the purpose of sanctions was not to be punitive, but to protect animal welfare, to maintain public confidence in the profession and to maintain professional standards. "A postponement of judgment, with suitable undertakings from the Respondent, is the correct course of action," said Mrs Freedman. Mr MacMahon has subsequently signed undertakings relating to CPD in both surgical and medical disciplines, and the Committee has postponed for 12 months its judgment as to any further sanction.
The Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has approved a new Health Protocol, which formalises a more compassionate approach to veterinary surgeons with health problems.
The Protocol will allow - in appropriate circumstances - veterinary surgeons (and, from next year, registered veterinary nurses) who suffer from health concerns affecting their ability to practise safely, to have the matter dealt with confidentially, without going to a full public Disciplinary Committee hearing.
It will allow individuals to access appropriate support and help away from the public spotlight, while ensuring that they do not put animals or the public at risk.
According to independent legal advice sought by the College, such an approach is appropriate and necessary in order for the College to fulfil its regulatory responsibilities - similar systems exist within other regulators.
The draft Protocol was the subject of consultation amongst the profession and the public over summer. Proposed amendments to the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct, to support the introduction of the Health Protocol, were also approved in the November meeting.
RCVS Head of Professional Conduct, Gordon Hockey said: "The Protocol encourages anyone coming into contact with veterinary surgeons - including other veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses, members of practice staff, clients and healthcare professionals - who have concerns about a veterinary surgeon's health to report those concerns to the RCVS as soon as is reasonably practicable.
"Veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who are concerned about the health of a veterinary surgeon must also take steps to ensure that animals are not put at risk and that the interests of the public, including those of their colleagues, are protected."
The Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has unanimously approved the introduction of a disciplinary system for registered veterinary nurses from 1 April 2011.
The RCVS established the non-statutory Register for Veterinary Nurses in 2007, and says that registration signals a commitment from veterinary nurses to account for their professional practice.
Registered Veterinary Nurses (RVNs) commit to keep their skills up to date via mandatory continuing professional development and abide by the Guide to Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses. The disciplinary mechanism is the final component of this regulatory framework. From 1 April 2011, an RVN can be removed or suspended from the Register if found guilty of serious professional misconduct, fraudulent registration or criminal offences affecting his or her fitness to practise.
The decision has been awaited for some time, as according to the College, there has been some dispute about whether an RVN could be removed from the statutory List of Veterinary Nurses (meaning veterinary surgeons would be barred from delegating to them tasks allowed under Schedule 3 to the Veterinary Surgeons Act, such as medical treatment or minor surgery), as well as the non-statutory Register.
Following legal advice that it would not be appropriate to remove someone from a statutory list via a non-statutory regulatory system, RCVS Council and the Veterinary Nurses Council opted for removal from the Register only, with the caveat that any such removed VNs will be clearly identified on the List. In addition, veterinary surgeons will be advised, via the Guide to Professional Conduct, against delegating Schedule 3 tasks to them.
Council also confirmed that it would seek an amendment to Schedule 3 as soon as possible, to enable it to remove the names of nurses found guilty of serious professional misconduct or other charges from the List.
VN Council Chairman Liz Branscombe said: "The Veterinary Nurses Council is committed to moving towards statutory regulation for veterinary nurses. This non-statutory commitment to a disciplinary system is our chance to show government and the public that we are ready and willing to be regulated, which should stand us in good stead for the future."
The RVN disciplinary system will mirror that for veterinary surgeons, with the same complaints-handling, investigation and decision-making processes and sanctions.
Registered Veterinary Nurses will receive more detailed information about the system over the coming months.
Eleven members of staff at the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons are growing moustaches this month in support of the Movember Challenge, a campaign which raises funds to help combat prostate cancer.
Simon Wiklund, Advisory Manager and instigator of the College's participation in Movember 2010, said: "Visitors to the College over the next few weeks shouldn't be alarmed if some members of staff begin to resemble a Village People tribute band. I suggested this to the chaps last week, and was delighted so many were willing to look daft for such a good cause."
According to the Movember website, the aim is simple: "One man dies from prostate cancer every day in the UK. Movember challenges men to change their appearance and the face of men's health by growing a moustache. All MoBros should be clean shaven on 1 Movember and then grow a moustache for the entire month. The moustache becomes the ribbon for men's health, the means by which awareness and funds are raised for cancers that affect men."
The RCVS team - 'All 'Taches Great and Small' - comprises at least one member of every department in the College, so whilst the team as a whole will be raising as much money as it can, the College says it expects interdepartmental competition to get "quite hairy".
"In spite of ourselves, reputations are at stake here," admits Simon. "We're a mixed-ability team, so it will be interesting to see who sports the best tache at the end of Movember. This is no trivial hirsute."
Lending his support to the team's efforts, and off to something of a head start in the facial forestry department, is RCVS President Peter Jinman. He said: "I'm impressed that so many of the gents on the staff have taken it upon themselves to support The Prostate Cancer Charity in this way. If it's true that eight out ten chaps really do prefer whiskers, they should raise a decent amount of money."
Anyone wishing to support the All Taches Great & Small team in their bristling endeavours should please visit their fundraising pages (via www.rcvs.org.uk/movember). Donations can be made to individual MoBros, or to the team as a whole.
The RCVS is holding a session at the London Vet Show on Saturday 23rd October from 8:30am-9:30am to provide guidance and advice concerning the work your nursing team does in practice.
As the RCVS says, the recent Panorama programme "It shouldn't happen at a vets'" was a stark reminder of the importance of ensuring that all practice staff are working within the appropriate legal framework.
The session will answer such questions as:
Because of the early start, the RCVS is providing breakfast from 8:15am, though I wouldn't get your hopes up for eggs benedict and freshly smoked Loch Fyne kippers.
The RCVS says the session will be relevant for all members of the practice team, but that if you can't make the session, they will be on hand to discuss VN legislation on stand M26.
The RCVS and VN Councils Elections are now open for nominations from candidates who wish to stand in 2011.
RCVS Registrar Jane Hern said: "We are always pleased when veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses are prepared to contribute personally to the activities of the College and the governance of their own professions.
"Serving as a Council Member requires a fair amount of an individual's time and effort however, so we are announcing the nomination period in good time to allow people the chance to consider their options and make plans accordingly."
Six seats on RCVS Council and two on VN Council are due to be filled in the 2011 elections. Those elected will take their seats on RCVS Day next 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).
All 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 can nominate more than one candidate, and no current member of the RCVS Council or VN Council may make nominations.
Nominations must be made in writing on the prescribed form and received by the Registrar on or before the closing date of 31 January 2011. Full details and guidance notes for both elections are available on the RCVS Council Election page and VN Council Election page.
Nomination forms and candidate information forms for RCVS Council may be requested from Mrs Gabi Braun (020 7222 0761 or executiveoffice@rcvs.org.uk) and those for VN Council from Mrs Annette Amato (020 7202 0713 or a.amato@rcvs.org.uk).
Seven veterinary surgeons who took their final assessments at the University of Liverpool on 6 September have become the first to receive the postgraduate RCVS Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Practice with equine designations.
Dr Mark Holmes, a member of the RCVS sub-committee for the CertAVP who observed the assessments at Liverpool said: "I was very impressed by the quality of all the candidates and the diligence of the examination process.
"It is clear that candidates putting themselves forward for 'named' certificates have demonstrated particular interest in their chosen fields and place considerable value on passing their synoptic examination."
The modular certificates were introduced in 2007 to be a more flexible replacement for the old-style postgraduate certificates. Vets can now choose from 79 subject modules, with RCVS-accredited assessments offered by a range of universities. These institutions may also offer associated courses which vets can take to support their studies, although candidates are free to choose where and how they wish to study.
To build their credits into the full CertAVP qualification candidates must first enrol with the RCVS, which keeps a record of modules achieved. Candidates need to take two compulsory modules, and several of a range of optional modules, within ten years in order to receive the award. Candidates aiming for a designated award must choose specific modules from amongst the options, and additionally pass an overarching 'synoptic' assessment.
For more information about the individual modules and the qualification as a whole, prospective candidates can visit www.rcvs.org.uk/modcerts.
A project which aims to standardise the assessment of veterinary nurse practical training across Europe will have life beyond its pilot phase, thanks to European VN training network, Vetnnet.
The announcement was made in September at an Oslo-based conference to mark the conclusion of the pilot phase of the Pan-European Practical Assessment System project (PEPAS).
During its two-year pilot, the Leonardo da Vinci-funded project developed 111 new stations for Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs), including mark-sheets and examiner notes, and trained over 50 veterinary nursing examiners from eight countries across Europe. The new OSCE stations have been trialled across 250 students by seven European veterinary nurse schools.
Vetnnet has now committed to continuing the project, enabling its members to access the OSCEs and associated training.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons was a main project partner in the pilot, with specific responsibility for training and quality assurance of the system. Victoria Hedges, RCVS VN Examination and Higher Education Quality Manager said: "It's great that the hard work put into the project by so many countries will continue to bear fruit.
"Feedback in Oslo was excellent and it was heartening to see that when examiners' marks were compared across countries, standardisation was very good. The feedback also helped us to see where students were not achieving the desire results, indicating where more training is needed."
See www.vetnnet.com for more information.
The Disciplinary Committee of the RCVS has refused an application for restoration to the RCVS Register by Dr Janos Nemeth, who had previously been found to have fraudulently registered with the RCVS and struck off.
At the original hearing, in February 2009, Dr Nemeth - the holder of a veterinary science degree from the Szent István University in Budapest, who had practised in the Wokingham area of Berkshire - was found to have dishonestly entered his name in the RCVS Register using a forged document (a Certificate of Membership and Good Professional Behaviour from the Hungarian Veterinary Chamber). The Disciplinary Committee at that time found the evidence that the document was a forgery to be "overwhelming" and concluded that Dr Nemeth had been lying to them about his knowledge of the forgery. It directed that his name should be removed from the Register.
Dr Nemeth lodged an appeal against this decision with the Privy Council, but then took no further steps. Accordingly, the Privy Council dismissed Dr Nemeth's appeal and he was struck off in October 2009.
On lodging his application for restoration, Dr Nemeth had asserted he was not guilty of the original charge. The Committee was disappointed with this aspect of Dr Nemeth's application saying that he would be "well-advised to demonstrate some insight into the seriousness of the original findings."
The Committee emphasised that a finding of dishonesty against a member of the College is "one of great seriousness and never made lightly" and accepted that it may be considered "fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon."
Questioning Dr Nemeth, the Committee was further disappointed to learn that he had not made himself more familiar with the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct, or made a greater effort to keep up to date with veterinary practice in the UK, or provided documentary evidence of attendance at continuing professional development (CPD) meetings.
After considering all the facts presented to it, including the severe personal and financial impact on Dr Nemeth of his removal from the Register, the Committee was not satisfied that he was fit to be restored and did not consider it in the public interest to grant his application.
Acknowledging she could not bind a future Committee as to any further application for restoration by Dr Nemeth, Committee Chairman Mrs Caroline Freedman advised: "Dr Nemeth should provide supporting evidence where possible, including records of CPD, testimonials from other veterinary surgeons or employers, or a more incisive knowledge of the Guide to Professional Conduct. We would remind Dr Nemeth that the onus is on him to establish his fitness to be restored to the Register."
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has called for comment on a new draft health protocol which aims to deal compassionately with veterinary surgeons who have health problems, such as alcohol or drug addiction or mental health issues, while continuing to protect the public interest.
According to independent legal advice sought by the College, such an approach is appropriate and necessary in order for the RCVS to fulfil its regulatory responsibilities - similar systems exist within other regulators.
RCVS President Peter Jinman said: "At present, where veterinary surgeons suffer from health problems that affect their fitness to practise, they may be referred to a formal and public Disciplinary Committee inquiry and stopped from practising. But it is recognised that this is not always in the public interest, which could be protected by a more compassionate approach, involving medical help, workplace supervision and continued practice, subject to conditions."
As a result, the draft Protocol has been developed by the RCVS Preliminary Investigation and Advisory Committees. It formalises and builds on steps taken by the Preliminary Investigation Committee in the past to help veterinary surgeons to recover from health problems affecting fitness to practise, without referral to the RCVS Disciplinary Committee. Often those veterinary surgeons are also receiving help from the Veterinary Benevolent Fund's Veterinary Surgeons' Health Support Programme.
The Protocol encourages anyone coming into contact with veterinary surgeons - including other veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses, members of practice staff, clients and healthcare professionals - who have concerns about a veterinary surgeon's health to report those concerns to the RCVS as soon as is reasonably practicable. Veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who are concerned about the health of a veterinary surgeon must also take steps to ensure that animals are not put at risk and that the interests of the public, including those of their colleagues, are protected.
A similar protocol would be introduced for Registered Veterinary Nurses when the equivalent disciplinary system comes into force next year.
The draft protocol, together with recommended changes to the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct to support the change, is available online (www.rcvs.org.uk/healthprotocol) and comments are requested by 8 October 2010. The comments will be considered by Advisory Committee and then RCVS Council.
Comments should be sent to Simon Wiklund, Advisory Manager, on s.wiklund@rcvs.org.uk. A hard copy of the consultation document is available on request.
Seventeen overseas-qualified veterinary surgeons who succeeded in passing the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Statutory Examination for Membership, have been admitted to the RCVS Register and may now practise in the UK.
Remarkably, nearly half of them (8) were graduates of St George's University School of Veterinary Medicine (SGUSVM) in the Caribbean island of Grenada. Austin Kirwan, St George's Associate Dean of UK and Ireland Clinical Affairs said: "This outstanding result confirms the school's status as a leading international teaching institution for prospective veterinarians. Our graduates now have a proven record of high standards which is encouraging to those who follow in their footsteps."
To mark the occasion, a ceremony was held at Belgravia House for the registrants, their friends and families. After the veterinary surgeons' names were entered into the Register, RCVS President, Mr Peter Jinman, made a short address to welcome those attending, and presented the new Members with their certificates.
"Today is a celebration not just for those registering but for all of you," he said, acknowledging the importance of the support provided to vets by their friends and family. He also encouraged those who were newly graduated to sign up for the Professional Development Phase as the route to postgraduate education, saying that "Education does not stop today; indeed it is just a closing of one chapter and tomorrow is the opening of another, for learning is a lifelong experience."
The RCVS is calling for its members to nominate veterinary surgeons and non-veterinary surgeons who merit the award of Honorary Associateship or Honorary Fellowship.
Honorary Associates are awarded annually to people, not necessarily vets, by reason of their special eminence in, or special service to, the veterinary profession. Council has agreed that these should only be people ineligible for election as Honorary Fellows.
Honorary Fellowships can be awarded to up to three veterinary surgeons in any year for their service to, or special eminence in, the cause of veterinary science. Nominees for Honorary Fellowships must be members of the RCVS and have been a member, or held a registrable qualification, for at least 20 years.
Nominations must be received by the President, Mr Peter Jinman, by Friday 3 September 2010. Members can obtain nomination forms from the RCVS Executive Office (0207 202 0761 or executiveoffice@rcvs.org.uk).
All nominations need to include the particular reasons why the honour/award should be conferred, along with supporting statements from two referees, at least one of whom must not be a working colleague of the person nominated.
Nominations will be considered at the meeting of the Nominations Committee on 14 October, and awards made at RCVS Day on 1 July 2011. Details of Honorary Fellowship and Honorary Associateship award holders can be found in the Register of Veterinary Surgeons, with the addition since 2 July 2010 of Dr Tony Lawrence and Professor Martin Shirley (Honorary Associates), and Professor Elizabeth Simpson and Professor Peter Roeder (Honorary Fellowships).
The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has suspended a veterinary surgeon from the Register for nine months for convictions regarding docking puppies' tails and driving offences, and for failing to obtain a client's consent to treatment or explore other treatment options.
At the conclusion of the four-day hearing, Dr Adetunji Ayinla Jolaosho, formerly principal veterinary surgeon at City Vet Clinic in Syston, near Leicester, was found unfit to practise following two convictions for tail docking plus 17 driving and related offences, which also brought the profession into disrepute.
They further found that he failed to obtain consent to remove tissue from Jemma, a Staffordshire Bull Terrier owned by Mrs Hill, and to discuss a reasonable range of treatment options with her, and that this also amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In December 2008, Mrs Hill brought Jemma to Dr Jolaosho to have a lump on her flank drained. Mrs Hill said she made it clear that she had limited finances and nothing other than this treatment should be done without her consent. Dr Jolaosho undertook a biopsy and removed tissue. He told the Committee that he asked his practice manager to contact Mrs Hill and obtain her consent, however, this was not consistent either with the clinical records or a letter sent to Mrs Hill in December 2008.
Caroline Freedman, Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee said: "The Committee is satisfied that Dr Jolaosho did not seek to obtain consent from Mrs Hill before he decided to carry out exploratory surgery. It does not consider that there was any attempt to explore treatment options with Mrs Hill before the surgery other than draining the mass."
On 16 June 2009, Dr Jolaosho pleaded guilty at Market Harborough Magistrates Court to two offences of docking the tails of Rottweiler and Doberman puppies. He was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay court costs of over £3,000. During 2003 to 2008, he was also convicted of 15 driving and related offences and twice of obstructing a police officer.
At the outset of the hearing, Dr Jolaosho admitted his criminal convictions, telling the Committee of his difficulties following the death of his wife in October 2002 and subsequent sole responsibility for his three teenage children. He also said that the tail docking resulted as an oversight on his part and that as the puppies were docked within five days of birth, there were no welfare issues. He emphasised that he had not carried out tail docking since being visited by the RSPCA in July 2008. He also drew to the Committee's attention the fact that, until 2003, he had been of good character.
The Committee accepted that for at least part of the period in question he was suffering from emotional problems following his wife's death, and his continuing financial responsibility for two of his children.
It was however, concerned, that having received a custodial sentence for driving whilst disqualified, he committed further driving offences on release. Nor did they accept that the tail docking was an oversight: in 2006 the RCVS advised Dr Jolaosho to comply with the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct and not dock dog's tails unless for "truly therapeutic or prophylactic reasons." In view of the seriousness of the charges admitted and proved, the Committee concluded that a period of nine months suspension from the Register would be a proportionate penalty.
Mrs Freedman said: "The primary purpose of the sanctions is not to punish but to protect the welfare of animals, maintain public confidence in the profession, and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct."
She added: "Bearing in mind the financial consequences of the suspension of Mr Jolaosho, the Committee does not consider that any useful purpose would be served by imposing a longer period of suspension. However, Mr Jolaosho should be aware that any further convictions or failure to observe the College's Guidelines are likely to lead to the removal of his name from the Register."
The RCVS and VN Councils have each agreed to raise registration and retention fees for the financial year 2011-12 by 2%. This means the annual retention fee for a home-practising veterinary surgeon will increase by £5, and the fee for a veterinary nurse, by £1.
To encourage members who cease to practise to request removal from the Register, rather than simply allow their membership to lapse, the fee for restoration following voluntary removal will be reduced by almost 50%, from £147 to £75.
All fees for the current financial year were, exceptionally, frozen to help mitigate the impact of the difficult economic climate on the veterinary profession. The increases agreed for 2011-12 are below current inflation figures, and in line with the RCVS financial policy of introducing small fee increases on an incremental basis in order to avoid sharp fee hikes resulting from inflationary pressures.
A list of the new fees can be found in the June edition of RCVS News, also available online at www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvsnews.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is warning veterinary surgeons to be on their guard after it came to light that a fraudster is charging a £150 'non-refundable application fee' for an RCVS 'internship' which does not exist. Apart from anything else, the RCVS does not offer internships.
Information about the fake internship has been sent to individuals registered with German website http://www.vetcontact.com/. It includes details about the Royal Veterinary College and the RCVS, but is basically fiction. It refers to a made up 'RCVS Hospital' in the 'Flint Hills of London'.
Gordon Hockey, RCVS Head of Professional Conduct said: "So far, only a handful of veterinary surgeons - all based overseas - have contacted us regarding the internship and queried the request for a non-refundable 'application' fee, although we are concerned that others may have been caught out.
"We would advise any veterinary surgeon to think twice before paying for a third party to facilitate an application for any placement or internship, and reiterate that the RCVS does not offer any such programmes."
The College is following up the situation with http://www.vetcontact.com/ and, if appropriate, will notify the police. In the meantime, anyone who is concerned that they may have fallen victim to the hoax should contact the RCVS Professional Conduct department on 020 7202 0728.
Less than a quarter of veterinary students starting their degrees in 2009 were male (24%), according to figures released today in RCVS Facts.
This is up slightly from 23% last year, but down from just over 30% in 1999: ten years before that, the gender balance of new students was approximately 50:50. Meanwhile, 53% of UK-practising veterinary surgeons are female.
RCVS Facts is part two of the RCVS Annual Report, and presents a statistical picture of the veterinary and veterinary nursing professions. Other headline facts include a 21% increase in the number of practice premises registered with the College since 1 April 2009, bringing the total on the Register of Veterinary Practice Premises to 4,821; some 766 veterinary nurse students completing their training and becoming eligible to register (an increase of 28% compared with those eligible to register during the previous two-year period) and an increase of nearly 10% in the number of complaints received about veterinary surgeons, to 739.
Figures are also available for:
The reporting year is 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010, and part one of the RCVS Annual Report, RCVS Review, takes a more personal look at the activities of the College during the period, through the eyes of some of those involved. Topics include reviews of Extra-Mural Studies and the Practice Standards Scheme, the modular Diploma in Advanced Veterinary Nursing producing the first diplomates, a focus on mental health and wellbeing, fund-raising for the RCVS Trust and the College's joint work with other authorities to bring justice in cases of fraudulent 'veterinary surgeons'.
Both publications are available online at: www.rcvs.org.uk/review and www.rcvs.org.uk/facts.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has refused an application for restoration to the RCVS Register from a Kent-based former veterinary surgeon struck off in 1994 for disregarding basic hygiene at his professional premises and failing to properly maintain a Controlled Drugs Register or patient records.
In June 1994, the Committee found that Mr Warwick John Seymour-Hamilton, at that time the only veterinary surgeon practising at premises at 9 Orchard Grove, Orpington, Kent, was guilty of disgraceful professional conduct and should have his name removed from the Register. The state and condition of the premises were found to be such as to risk the health and welfare of animals taken to the premises, and bring the profession into disrepute. An application made by Mr Seymour-Hamilton for restoration made in 1995 was refused.
At a restoration hearing on 18 June 2010, Mr Seymour-Hamilton told the Committee that he sought restoration to the Register because he wished to further his research work into plants with potential medicinal properties. Restoration, he said, would improve his professional status by giving him more credibility, particularly in terms of recognition by the medical and veterinary professions.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton said that he had no intention of returning to clinical practice immediately, and neither the Committee nor the College had heard of any adverse conduct by the applicant since his removal.
However, Caroline Freedman, Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee, noted that if Mr Seymour-Hamilton were to be restored, the Committee would have no power to prevent him from returning to general practice.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton's response to questioning by the Committee raised a number of concerns with respect to the future welfare of animals should restoration be granted. He told the Committee that he had not undertaken any relevant Continuing Professional Development in the past 15 years, and said he lacked knowledge of current relevant legislation, for example, the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and basic 'Cascade' prescribing requirements. He also said that he had not read the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct in the past 15 years and that it would not be satisfactory for him immediately to return to general practice.
Ms Freedman said: "If the Committee were to reinstate the Applicant to the Register, it would have to be satisfied that he is competent and safe to practise immediately. The Committee has an obligation to protect the public and animal welfare and cannot simply accept his assurances that he would take steps to rectify his self-confessed shortcomings at some point in the future."
Having taken all the evidence presented into account, the Committee was not satisfied that Mr Seymour-Hamilton was fit to be restored to the Register and dismissed his application.
The removal of names from the RCVS Register of Veterinary Surgeons for non-payment of retention fees is now complete, with 386 veterinary surgeons having been removed, compared with 616 last year.
The RCVS says that the administration involved with removing a name for non-payment is time-consuming and costly. Hence, to be restored to the Register, the veterinary surgeon must pay the appropriate annual retention fee, and the restoration fee, currently £294, which multiplies each time if fees are not paid in successive years.
The College writes to members' Register addresses to remind them when fees are due and, where an email address is maintained by the member as part of their formal record, also sends an email. It is, however, the responsibility of members to inform the RCVS Registration Department of any changes to their contact details and to ensure that payment is made. It is illegal for veterinary surgeons to practise or undertake any veterinary-related activities if their name does not appear on the RCVS Register as a home-practising member.
To help ensure that members removed for non-payment are aware that they have been removed from the Register, the full list of those removed for non-payment and not restored by 10 June can be downloaded from RCVSonline. The current status of individual veterinary surgeons can be checked online (www.rcvs.org.uk/checkregister).
A veterinary surgeon whose name has been removed from the Register and who wishes to restore him or herself should view the information on restoration to the Register.
Alternatively, please ring the RCVS Registration Department on 020 7202 0707. Restorations made since 10 June are not shown on this list.