The RCVS has launched its Veterinary Graduate Development Programme (VetGDP) e-portfolio platform to support graduates as they begin their working lives.

From this summer, all new veterinary graduates have had to be enrolled on the VetGDP when they start their first job as a qualified vet. This means that veterinary practices and other workplaces wishing to employ new veterinary graduates will need to become, or be working towards becoming, an RCVS-Approved Graduate Development Practice or Workplace. To date, over 1,800 VetGDP Advisers around the UK have registered for the training to help develop their new graduate colleagues.

All new veterinary graduates and their VetGDP Advisers will be able to use the new e-portfolio platform to record and monitor the graduate’s progress as they work through the programme.

Dr Linda Prescott-Clements (pictured right), RCVS Director of Education, said: “We recognise how important it is to support new veterinary graduates as much as possible during their first job as a fully-qualified veterinary surgeon. The transition from study to work can be a daunting one, and we wanted to create a resource that would help new graduates record and reflect on their journey through the programme and provide a space for the VetGDP Adviser to monitor and support their graduate as they progress.

“We believe the VetGDP programme will have a positive impact on graduates’ development and their confidence during their first role. The new e-portfolio will be a key resource for employers to help them support the professional development of the newest cohort of veterinary professionals.”

The RCVS will be holding two online workshops to provide VetGDP Advisers and veterinary graduates with support and advice about using the e-portfolio. The workshop dates and times are:

• Friday 17 September 1 PM – 2 PM
• Monday 20 September 7 PM – 8 PM

Further information and the online booking form can be found at https://www.rcvs.org.uk/vetgdpworkshops.

Some graduates may have completed forms to record their activities and progress as part of the VetGDP platform launch interim measures provided earlier this summer. Anyone who has manually completed any forms is encouraged to get in touch with the VetGDP team by emailing vetgdp@rcvs.org.uk who will be able to help transfer the data onto the e-portfolio if required.

Further information about becoming an RCVS-Approved Graduate Development Practice or Workplace can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetgdp

ITV News has reported how the shortage of veterinary surgeons is now causing owners in Wales to have to travel further and further afield in search of care.

The report also revealed the devastating impact on overworked veterinary staff, with some left in tears by abusive owners venting their frustration at being unable to find care for their animal. 

Anecdotally, the problems highlighted by ITV News are being seen elsewhere in the country, with more and more vets now starting to question whether or not the current requirement to provide out of hours care is sustainable in a world where there are more clients who increasingly expect flea treatment advice and other non emergency situations to be dealt with at 3:00am in the morning. 

Various solutions have been proposed in a forum discussion on VetSurgeon.org, including the removal of the requirement to provide an OOH service, for the RCVS to give vets the confidence to say no to non emergencies, a change to the CoPC to require vets to provide emergency care within 24 hours, not 24 hours a day, a requirement for new grads to undertake OOH as part of their PDP, and/or a requirement for OOH centres to have 3 vets on duty at any one time (which could improve working conditions). 

As the ITV report pointed out, the fundamental issue is one of a shortage of supply over demand, for which there is no overnight fix. However, many feel that reducing the demands of providing OOH could ease the situation considerably. 

Andrew Michael Dobson MRCVS has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after it found that he had carried out an act of veterinary certification while off the Register, failed to have professional indemnity insurance, then failed to respond to repeated requests from the College. 

At the start of the hearing the RCVS applied for it to take place in the absence of Mr Dobson, who had failed to respond when informed about the hearing. The application was granted by the DC on the basis that Mr Dobson, by refusing to respond to communications from the College – including by letter, telephone and email – had voluntarily waived his right to attend.

There were three sets of charges against Mr Dobson. The first charge was in June 2018, while he was not on the Register of Veterinary Surgeons, Mr Dobson had carried out an equine pre-purchase examination (PPE) and used the postnominals MRCVS to sign the associated PPE certificate and covering letter.

The Committee found this charge proven after it was presented with evidence of the certificate and covering letter alongside the fact that Mr Dobson had been removed from the Register on 1 June 2018 for non-payment of the annual renewal fee needed to remain on the RCVS Register. He was only restored to the Register upon paying his outstanding fee in late November 2018.

The second charge was that Mr Dobson did not have any professional indemnity insurance (or PII) or other equivalent arrangements in between June 2018 and August 2020. He also failed to provide adequate details of his PII when requested by the RCVS.

The Committee was presented with evidence that Mr Dobson had failed to confirm that he had PII arrangements or other equivalent arrangements in place prior to August 2020 and that he had failed to respond to numerous requests for evidence from the College. On this basis the Committee found the charges proven.

The third and final charge was that Mr Dobson had failed to respond to numerous requests from the RCVS, including: failing to provide written comments on concerns relating to the equine PPE; failing to provide written comments on the concern that he had carried out the PPE and used the postnominals MRCVS while not on the Register; failing to provide details of his continuing professional development (CPD) for the previous three years; and failing to provide copies of his Day Book and/or Controlled Drugs Register. All elements of this charge were found proven when the Committee was presented with evidence of numerous attempts to contact him that went unacknowledged and unanswered.

Regarding the first charge, the Committee recognised that Mr Dobson had not intentionally allowed his registration with the College to expire and that it was down to administrative error. However, it also considered that he had not responded to or taken action upon receiving numerous reminders to pay his fees. It considered that Mr Dobson had therefore acted recklessly in not only allowing his registration to expire but in continuing to practise veterinary surgery while not registered, a criminal act in contravention of the Veterinary Surgeons Act. The Committee therefore found that the first charge amounted to serious professional misconduct.

The Committee also found that the remaining charges constituted serious professional misconduct.

Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf said: "The respondent demonstrated a pattern of behaviour in not responding, which was sustained and persistent. He asked for extensions of time but did not make good on his assurances that he would provide information. Due to the length of time during which the respondent failed to comply with the requests, as well as the proliferation of issues in respect of which he did not comply, the Committee was of the view that he demonstrated a wilful disregard of the role of the RCVS and the regulatory processes. This was particularly serious in light of the reliance which the RCVS places upon its members to cooperate with providing it with information relating to their professional practice which is relevant to the RCVS’s regulation of the profession.

"There was no harm caused to animals or the public, and the Committee acknowledged that practice circumstances have been made more difficult in general by the Covid-19 pandemic. However… the respondent’s failures to comply were serious and undermined the functions of the RCVS. The Committee was satisfied that the respondent’s failures fell so far below what was expected as to amount to serious professional misconduct."

Having found that all the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct the Committee then considered the most appropriate sanction for Mr Dobson. In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee considered Mr Dobson’s recklessness in failing to renew his registration and practising while it was lapsed, his pattern of not responding to the RCVS, the fact that financial gain was obtained as a result of misconduct, a wilful disregard to the RCVS and regulation, and limited evidence of insight. In mitigation the Committee considered Mr Dobson’s previous good character, a long and otherwise unblemished career, the fact that no animals were harmed and increased demands on time and processes due to Covid-19.

However, taking all of the information into account, the Committee decided that removal from the Register was the appropriate and proportionate sanction due to the sustained and prolonged nature of the misconduct.

Cerys Jones said: “The respondent demonstrated a wilful disregard of the role of the RCVS and the regulatory processes by way of his disgraceful conduct. In addition, his lack of engagement with the hearing process indicates to the Committee that he is not engaging with his regulator and, along with the limited insight and lack of remediation with respect to the disgraceful conduct, this demonstrates a lack of insight into the seriousness of his actions or their consequences.”

Laura Padron Vega, a veterinary surgeon who was struck off in 2018 for falsely backdating Certificates of Competence whilst working as an Official Veterinarian, has been restored to the Register by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee.

Ms Padron Vega had also been found to have failed in her duties as an OV by being unprepared for, and unaware of, new regulations. She also did not take adequate steps to ensure that the two individuals for whom she had given veterinary certification were licensed to perform slaughter in accordance with the regulations.

Ms Padron Vega originally applied for restoration in December last year, at which time the Disciplinary Committee had concerns about her keeping up-to-date with the knowledge and skills needed to return to practice, and decided to adjourn for six months to allow her to prove that it was appropriate to restore her name to the Register.

At the latest hearing, Ms Padron Vega sought to address the concerns that the Committee had raised about her professional development. In addition to the documentation she provided in her original restoration hearing, which included positive testimonials from colleagues, she provided evidence of her continuing professional development (CPD).

This included a letter from her previous employer, who confirmed she had more recently worked for them as a Certification Support Officer from February to March 2021, where they received positive feedback on her conduct.

The documentation also included a letter from another practice confirming that Ms Padron Vega had been offered a position of employment with them, and a separate letter from practice veterinary surgeon, Dr Khan MRCVS, confirming that he would be her mentor. Dr Khan also confirmed that she had been coming to the practice for work experience and he considered her to have good working knowledge of current medicines used within the practice. He further outlined in his letter what CPD support the practice would be providing for Ms Padron Vega as part of her employment with them.

An additional piece of evidence was a testimonial from Dr Max Rutana MRCVS who confirmed that Ms Padron Vega had worked unsupervised for a period of three weeks, and that he found her clinical notes during this period to be satisfactory and they received no complaints about her conduct from clients.

Ms Padron Vega also submitted CPD documentation which confirmed she has taken a Certification Support Officers’ course and examination in mid-December 2020.

In response to questions from the Committee about her small animal practice experience and how long she had been shadowing Dr Khan for, Ms Padron Vega explained that she had completed 80 hours of shadowing with Dr Khan and that in her future employment under his mentorship, he would be available to support her. She also explained that her job offer was evidence that she would continue to be trained in the relevant area of veterinary work.

Cerys Jones, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “During the hearing, we heard evidence from Dr Khan who provided reassurance of Ms Padron Vega’s continued professional development with his practice and the ongoing supervision that she would be under. He explained that the supervision would last at least three months.

“The Committee’s view is that Ms Padron Vega accepts the findings of dishonesty that were made against her at the original Inquiry hearing. In her Reflective Statement, she acknowledges that veterinarians have a professional responsibility to ensure the integrity of veterinary certification, that she is now aware that when signing documents as a veterinary surgeon they need to be approached with care and accuracy. Further she has undertaken a CPD course on this very ethical issue and has passed the examination set at the end of that course. The Committee is confident that Ms Padron Vega is unlikely to repeat the conduct which resulted in her being removed from the Register. It is the Committee’s decision that she should be restored to the Register.”

The eminent equine vet, Dr Sue Dyson FRCVS, has been struck off for a series of dishonest statements and actions, including fabricating a letter from a fictitious Home Office Inspector, in order to have her research project published in an international publication.

The Disciplinary Committee heard that in 2018, when Dr Dyson was employed as Head of Clinical Orthopaedics at the Animal Health Trust (AHT), she completed a research project: ‘Influence of rider: horse body weight ratios on equine welfare and performance – a pilot study’, for which she had previously been given the go-ahead by the AHT’s Clinical Research Ethics Committee. The results of the study were then submitted to the Journal of Veterinary Behaviour: Clinical Applications and Research for publication.

After peer-reviewing the project paper at the request of Journal Editor Karen Overall, Dr Matthew Parker, a Senior Lecturer in Behavioural Pharmacology at the University of Portsmouth, was concerned by the lack of a Home Office licence and asked for details of the licence or an explanation of why the project didn’t need one, and for the paper to be re-submitted.

In reply, Dr Dyson then emailed Ms Overall saying: “We have a former Home Office Inspector on our AHT Ethical Committee and two current licence holders (Named Veterinary Surgeons) who are fully conversant with the current legislation ... I also sought informal advice from a current Inspector. All were fully aware of the protocols to be employed and gave me assurance that in their opinion Home Office approval would not be required”.

Ms Overall then asked Dr Dyson to obtain a letter from the Home Office to support this position.

On 24 December 2018, Dr Dyson sent Ms Overall a letter purportedly from a Home Office Inspector called Dr Butler who, she explained, had advised her during the planning phase of the project. In the letter, the fictitious Dr Butler confirmed that their advice was sought for the project and that in their opinion, a Home Office Licence was not required.

Ms Overall then sent the letter to Dr Parker for further review, who decided to contact Dr Martin Whiting, Head of Operations at the Home Office Animals in Science Regulation Unit (ASRU) to ask if he knew of Dr Butler.

Dr Whiting confirmed that the Home Office had no record of employing a Dr Butler as an Inspector and that they were in the process of making further inquiries into the matter.

After Dr Whiting’s reply was forwarded to Dr Dyson, she replied to him saying that she thought the studies’ procedures did not meet the criteria for the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA), but that this was questioned by peer reviewers.

She said that her decision to send Dr Butler’s letter was one that she would ‘eternally regret’ and that she was ‘an inherently honest person’.

She explained that she was under a huge amount of pressure in her personal and professional life and that she was ‘fully aware that [she] acted completely inappropriately and she requested the incident be overlooked’.

In March 2019, Dr Dyson sent a letter to William Reynolds, Head of the Home Office ASRU, in which she expressed remorse for writing the letter. Mr Reynolds subsequently raised a concern with the RCVS about Dr Dyson’s alleged behaviour. 

Dr Jane Downes, who chaired the Disciplinary Committee, and spoke on its behalf, said: “The Committee heard from Dr Dyson that she had no recollection of several events detailed in the charge, including writing the letter from Dr Butler and sending the email to Ms Overall which contained Dr Butler’s letter. She accepted that the letter was dishonest and that it should not have been sent. However, she also claimed that, as she could not remember writing the letter, she did not act dishonestly.

The Committee heard testimonials from several witnesses who held Dr Dyson in high regard, including colleagues from the AHT, who attested to her integrity.

However, there were many dubious claims made by Dr Dyson throughout the hearing, including that the Home Office Inspector that she referenced as ‘my friendly inspector’ was someone who could have given informed consent to a project as Dr Dyson confirmed that she had met the individual briefly, around two and a half years ago at a drinks reception.

In reaching its decisions, the Committee considered Dr Dyson’s previously impeccable character, the written and verbal testimonies from witnesses. They also considered that during the hearing, Dr Dyson explained that at the time she fabricated the letter, she was under a lot of work and personal pressures, including managing a workload amidst colleagues’ resigning or going on maternity leave and it being the anniversary of her dog having to be humanely destroyed.

However, it did not accept Dr Dyson’s claims that she had amnesia at this time, and considered that she had not owned up to her wrongdoing until it was discovered. Although Dr Dyson maintained her actions were not pre-meditated, the Committee considered that, in the case of the forged letter, a certain amount of planning and careful thought was involved. The Committee believed that Dr Dyson knew what she was doing at the time, but acknowledged she may subsequently have blanked out what she did.

The Committee found all but one of the allegations proved and confirmed that it “was satisfied that the writing and sending of that letter was the culmination of a course of dishonest conduct.”

Committee Chair Dr Downes said: “In assessing [the evidence of] Dr Dyson the Committee took into account the difficulty faced by any Respondent appearing before their Regulator and also the various interruptions occasioned by issues which had to be dealt with during her evidence. Whilst [Dr Dyson is] undoubtedly highly qualified and highly respected, the Committee nevertheless considered her evidence lacked credibility and was not reliable.”

The Committee found that Dr Dyson’s conduct had breached parts of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons and amounted to serious professional misconduct.

Dr Downes continued: “The Committee determined that it was important that a clear message be sent that this sort of behaviour is wholly inappropriate and [was] not to be tolerated. It brings discredit upon Dr Dyson and discredit upon the profession.

"For whatever reason, Dr Dyson chose not to respond to Ms Overall’s email on 30th November 2018 in an honest and straightforward way. Instead, she lied about the makeup of the AHT Ethical Committee in order to cloak her response with authority.

"She also lied about having received advice from a current Inspector for the same reason. In the Committee’s view, she made a conscious decision to provide a dishonest response. She no doubt believed that would be the end of the matter.

"When that did not work, she lied further in the email to her co-author, Andrew Hemmings, claiming to have a letter from her friendly Inspector. When that too did not work, she impersonated a Home Office Inspector in creating the ‘Dr Butler letter’.

"She then added a false declaration to the manuscript, which she subsequently submitted to the Journal along with an email containing yet further lies. That was all done in a blatant and wilful attempt to deceive Ms Overall ... into believing the contents of the correspondence to be true, that confirmation a Home Office Licence was not required had been obtained and all was therefore well with the submitted manuscript.

"There was no rush, or urgency to have the paper published and the actions were not done in a moment of panic. No doubt she had not planned the entire course of events in advance, but instead reacted to each new obstacle that came her way, but her overall course of dishonest conduct spanned over three weeks.

“The Committee was well aware of the impact and ramifications for Dr Dyson of any decision to remove her from the Register but had to weigh her interests with those of the public.

"In doing so it took account of the context and circumstances of the case, all matters of personal mitigation, as detailed above, Dr Dyson’s undoubted distinguished international career and reputation and the need to act proportionally.

"However, for all the reasons given above, the Committee was of the view that the need to uphold proper standards of conduct within the veterinary profession, together with the public interest in maintaining confidence in the profession of veterinary surgeons, meant that a period of suspension would not be sufficient and that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in all the circumstances of this case was that of removal from the Register."

Warwick John Seymour-Hamilton, a former veterinary surgeon who was struck off 27 years ago, has had his ninth application to be restored to the Register rejected on the basis that he would pose a risk to animal welfare if he were to practise as a veterinary surgeon.

Mr Seymour-Hamilton made previous unsuccessful applications for restoration in 1995, 2010, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020.

Mr Seymour-Hamilton was originally removed from the Register in 1994 following an inspection of his veterinary practice premises in Orpington, Kent, that found that the condition of the practice, including the equipment and facilities, were of such a risk to animal health and welfare that it brought the profession into disrepute.

In considering his current application, the Committee had to take several factors into account, including: whether Mr Seymour-Hamilton had accepted the findings of his original hearing; whether he demonstrated insight into his past conduct; protection of the public and the public interest; the future welfare of animals committed to his care should he be restored; length of time off the Register; his conduct since removal; and evidence that he’d kept up-to-date in terms of the knowledge and skills required of a practising veterinary surgeon.

Mr Seymour-Hamilton accepted the facts of the original charges but did not accept the conclusions of the two veterinary surgeons who inspected his practice, who, he claimed, had falsely accused him.

As a result, the Committee concluded that Mr Seymour-Hamilton did not accept the seriousness of the original findings against him, nor had he demonstrated any insight into either the original charges, nor what was required of him to enable a successful application for restoration.

Judith Webb, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee is driven to the conclusion that the applicant has displayed total disregard for rules and regulations. In his evidence he stated that he is professionally competent to spay a cat  and  he had done so in Calais. This was in recent years and whilst struck off by the RCVS, and after more than 25 years out of the profession. He was unable to see that he had done anything wrong in this.”

As to protection of the public and the future welfare of animals committed to his care, the Committee found that Mr Seymour-Hamilton continued to display a lack of understanding of the role and purpose of regulation. He had shown no insight into previous decisions or of what was required of him to enable a successful restoration, despite being given advice in that regard. He presented no compelling evidence to indicate that he would be safe to practise veterinary surgery were he to be restored to the Register.  

Regarding Mr Seymour-Hamilton’s conduct since removal from the Register, the Committee found he did not demonstrate sufficient relevant conduct in relation to his fitness to practise. The Committee noted that, on previous occasions, he had indicated he had illegally practised veterinary surgery and admitted using his own animals to experimentally administer new and untested remedies.

The Committee found that, in relation to the 27 years since removal from the Register, Mr Seymour-Hamilton had not undertaken the prolonged, intensive and formal retraining needed to ensure he was now fit to practise. It also found that, since the last restoration hearing in 2020, Mr Seymour-Hamilton had undertaken very little continuing professional development, maintaining that he was too busy with his work relating to herbal remedies to attend formal veterinary training.

Judith Webb added: “He claimed that he does not find it difficult to keep up-to-date, because he is able to perform online searches if he is in need of information. He thinks that he is competent to operate even after 27 years out of the profession, and maintains that he could operate now. In the view of the Committee, the applicant is totally unaware of current veterinary principles such as it being an evidence-based profession, use of clinical audit and reflective learning. He does not appear to have accepted the purpose of the regulator in protecting public interest, including maintaining public confidence in the profession, nor its role in upholding professional standards and promoting animal welfare. 

The Committee considers that where some 27 years have passed since the applicant has practised, there will inevitably be a serious risk to the welfare of animals if he is restored to the Register. In addition, the Committee is firmly of the opinion that it would not be in the public interest for the application for restoration to the RCVS Register to be granted in this case.”

The full documentation from the restoration hearing can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

Paisley-based Laura Benson RVN has been suspended for nine months by the RCVS VN Disciplinary Committee for stealing from her veterinary practice and asking a colleague to input false clinical records about her pet.

Ms Benson faced six charges.

The first was that between January 2018 and November 2019 she took a number of bags of dog food and two horse wormer syringes from the practice without paying for them. 

Charge 2 alleged that between November 2018 and November 2019 she took a number of items of animal food and one or more boxes of horse wormer and paid less than the correct amount for them.

Charge 3 was that between October 2018 and November 2019 she arranged for or allowed a friend to receive a discount on items from the practice, without consent from the practice.

Charge 4 alleged that in December 2019 she asked a veterinary surgeon colleague to input details of treatment and/or medicine for her cat into the clinical records of another of her animals that was also registered to the practice.

Charge 5 was that in relation to charges 1, 2 and 3, her conduct was dishonest.

Charge 6 alleged that in relation to charge 4, her conduct was dishonest, potentially compromised the integrity of a professional colleague and was potentially detrimental to animal welfare.

At the outset of the hearing, Ms Benson admitted to charges 1,2,3,4 and 6 of the allegations and the Committee accepted these admissions. The Committee considered evidence from Ms Benson’s colleagues including witness statements, written testimonial and clinical records for her animals.

When asked about taking items from the practice, Ms Benson explained that she did not intend to take items without paying for them and that she had not realised how much she had taken. She also explained that she had paid back in full what she owed to the practice. The Committee considered that Ms Benson’s conduct had involved a degree of premeditation as she had repeatedly taken items over an extended period. They also considered that there had been a potential risk of injury to animals resulting from Ms Benson’s request to incorrectly write up her animal’s veterinary records.

The defence attested that no actual harm had come to any animal because of Ms Benson’s actions and that she previously had an unblemished career in veterinary nursing. She had also admitted most of the charges against her and paid for the items she had taken in full.

Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee considered that in the case of Ms Benson, there had been a potential risk to animals had her pet’s records been incorrectly completed, although no harm resulted. The request to alter the records had been a short, single event, but the taking of items had been repeated over a period.

"The Committee also considered that Ms Benson had abused the trust placed in her as a senior nurse with managerial responsibility. We took into account that there was some evidence of Ms Benson being overloaded by work, but there was no evidence of any health condition during the time of the misconduct which might explain her actions.”

The Committee therefore found Ms Benson guilty of serious professional misconduct and decided that a nine-month suspension from the Register was the most appropriate sanction.

Cerys Jones said: “The Committee accepted that Ms Benson had developing insight in making her admissions and we give her credit for her long unblemished career. She admitted to a large part of the allegation, expressed remorse for her actions and has repaid the practice. We have also heard a number of positive testimonials which spoke positively of Ms Benson’s recent conduct.

“However, dishonesty is a serious matter in relation to professional practice and taking no action in response to the serious nature of Ms Benson’s disgraceful conduct would not be proportionate or serve to protect animals and maintain public confidence in the profession.

“Having carefully considered matters, the Committee decided that the appropriate and proportionate sanction, was to suspend Ms Benson’s registration for nine months.”

Ms Benson has 28 days from being informed of the outcome of the hearing to appeal the Committee’s decision.

Following a public consultation, the RCVS Council has voted to adopt all the proposals made by the RCVS Legislation Working Party concerning future veterinary legislation.

The Legislative Reform Consultation took place between November 2020 and April 2021 and asked members of the veterinary profession and the public to give their responses to a package of proposals for future veterinary legislation designed to enhance the role of veterinary nurses, modernise RCVS registration, lead to a modern fitness to practise regime, and ensure the regulation of veterinary practices. 

The proposals represent the biggest legislative reform since the 1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act.

In total the consultation received 1,330 responses, of which 714 (54%) were from veterinary surgeons, 335 (25%) from veterinary nurses, 93 (7%) from veterinary paraprofessionals, 73 (5%) from student veterinary nurses, 58 (4%) from members of the public, 40 (3%) from veterinary and industry organisations, including representative bodies, and the remainder from veterinary students and veterinary practice managers.

An analysis of the consultation responses covering each of the five core areas and their individual recommendations can be found in the final report, which is available at www.rcvs.org.uk/legislativereform.

After considering this report, Council voted by a majority to accept the recommendations, meaning that they are now formally adopted as RCVS policy and will form the basis for discussions on the need for new legislation with the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra).

Professor Stephen May has chaired the Legislation Working Party that developed the proposal since its inception in 2017 when he was RCVS President. He said: “We are very grateful to those individuals and organisations who took the time to complete this very important consultation on recommendations for the future legislative framework for the professions. We also appreciate the candour of those who were unsure about or opposed to the recommendations.

“When the Legislation Working Party met to consider the responses and the report, it decided that, while no substantive changes needed to be made to the principle-based recommendations, the points raised both against and in favour of individual recommendations gave us important material for additional consideration, and food for thought as to how any detailed proposals would be implemented once enabling legislation is in place.

“We look forward to submitting these recommendations to Defra formally, with a view to them becoming, in time, a bill put before Parliament to replace the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966. In so doing, this would establish a modern, flexible and comprehensive piece of legislation that would make sure the regulatory structure for the veterinary professions is fit for purpose for decades to come.”

As well as the main report of the Legislative Reform Consultation, RCVS Council also considered a series of interim measures that would be in line with the overall aims of future legislative changes, but which could be implemented without primary legislation.

The proposed interim measures included:

• the establishment of smaller-scale (‘mini’) Preliminary Investigation Committees (PICs) to help streamline the concerns investigation process;
• the establishment of a Charter Case Protocol where certain cases that meet the threshold for a full disciplinary hearing, but which might be likely to attract a lesser sanction, may be concluded, without recourse to a full public Disciplinary Committee hearing, via a system of published warnings; and,
• changing the standard of proof in determining the facts of a case during a Disciplinary Committee hearing from the criminal standard (‘beyond all reasonable doubt’) to the civil standard (‘on the balance of probabilities’).

Council members voted on each of these interim measures on an individual basis – with the mini-PICs and the Charter Case Protocol being accepted by majority vote.

However, Council members voted against implementing the change to the standard of proof at this time, citing a number of concerns about the potential impact of it being implemented under the current concerns investigation and disciplinary procedures. Similar concerns had been put forward by many of those who responded to the consultation itself.

Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: “The approved procedural changes will, I believe, lead to a significant improvement in the efficiency and effectiveness of our disciplinary processes. The Charter Case Protocol will mean that, in suitable cases where a finding of serious professional misconduct at a full disciplinary hearing would likely only lead to a reprimand or to no further action being taken, a more proportionate and less time-consuming and expensive means of resolving cases will be available. However, it will still reflect the seriousness of the matters and continue to protect the public interest, welfare and the reputation of the profession.

“Furthermore, by phasing out the Case Examiner Group stage and instead referring concerns to ‘mini’ PICs, which will decide if the threshold of serious professional misconduct has been met, it will make our concerns investigation processes clearer and more streamlined and therefore more efficient. We look forward to publishing further details on both of these changes in due course.

“Although Council members accepted that a change of the standard of proof would be an integral part of introducing a modern fitness to practise (FTP) regime as part of any future legislation, they had significant concerns about the ‘interim’ recommendation to introduce it under the current arrangements, in advance of implementing a full FTP model, and so a majority felt that they could not vote for it.”

To read the full report of the Legislative Reform Consultation, including analysis of the responses, please visit www.rcvs.org.uk/legislativereform.

The RCVS is inviting all vets to attend its Annual General Meeting, taking place online, on Friday, 9 July 2021.

The proceedings will begin at 10am with the formal adoption by RCVS Council of the Annual Report and Financial Statements for 2020, which will be published prior to the event.

The College will then answer any written questions that have been submitted about the Annual Report by veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.

If you have any questions about the Annual Report, you'll need to submit them to RCVS Events Manager Deborah Rowlanes on d.rowlanes@rcvs.org.uk no later than Friday 2 July 2021.

RCVS President Mandisa Greene will then formally welcome the newly-elected RCVS Council members – Louise Allum, Danny Chambers, Tshidi Gardiner and Colin Whiting – onto Council for their four-year terms, and newly-elected VN Council members Susan Howarth and Donna Lewis for their three-year terms, as well as saying farewell to retiring members of both Councils.

After a short break, the AGM will reconvene at 11am to approve Kate Richards (pictured right) as President for 2021-22, Melissa Donald as Junior Vice-President, Mandisa as Senior Vice-President, and Niall Connell as Treasurer.

There will then be addresses from Matthew Rendle as Chair of Veterinary Nurses Council, and from Mandisa as the outgoing RCVS President for 2020-21, followed by the formal investiture of the new RCVS Officer Team.

There will then be closing remarks from Kate Richards as the newly invested RCVS President.

If you'd like to attend the AGM, you'll need to register here: www.rcvs.org.uk/agm21-registration.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded David Henry Eccles MRCVS and warned him about his future conduct after he admitted to clinical failings relating to his treatment of a cat.

Mr Eccles had first appeared before the Disciplinary Committee in November 2018 where he admitted a number of clinical failings regarding his diagnosis of a cat, the keeping of accurate and detailed clinical records, giving the animal appropriate treatment, surgery and care, and failing to provide the cat’s owners with adequate information on the cat’s care upon discharge.

After Mr Eccles admitted the two charges against him, and the Committee found him guilty of serious professional misconduct, the Committee then postponed its decision on sanction on the condition that Mr Eccles agreed to abide by a set of undertakings in the interim. They included: the preparation of a personal development plan, the enrolment of his practice in the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme, the appointment of a veterinary mentor, the completion of additional training and CPD, and his agreement to pay any costs of complying with the undertakings, including the appointment of and work undertaken by the appointed mentor.

At the resumed hearing last week, the Committee received evidence from Mr Eccles confirming that he had complied with all the original undertakings agreed to in 2018. It also considered some further undertakings that Mr Eccles had agreed to in October 2020 when his reconvened hearing was postponed due to the coronavirus pandemic. They included: confirming his compliance with the personal development plan he had drawn up in 2019, his practice achieving the Core Standards accreditation level within the Practice Standards Scheme, continuing to meet with his veterinary mentor, and undertaking additional CPD – all of which were found to be completed.

The Committee also heard evidence from both the veterinary mentor and Mr Eccles himself. In his evidence, Mr Eccles apologised to the owners of the cat for the care he had provided, admitting that he had let them and himself down by not having sufficient knowledge to recognise the cat’s needs and to provide him with a sufficient level of care. He also confirmed he was continuing to make improvements to his practice and that he had enjoyed the process of being mentored.

Dr Martin Whiting, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “In November 2018, Mr Eccles practice had fallen significantly short of an acceptable and adequate standard. He was a sole practitioner who had drifted away from professional standards.”

“The Committee today considers that Mr Eccles has met the undertakings which he accepted in November 2018 and again in October 2020 when the resumed hearing was adjourned owing to Covid-19. It accepts the College’s analysis as to how those standards have been met. It notes that Mr Eccles’ practice has achieved accreditation in Core Standards under the Practice Standard Scheme, something which is voluntary in ordinary practice. That is an exacting scheme. He has engaged with his mentor and had indicated that he will continue to do so as the need arises in order to maintain his development.”

Dr Whiting added: “The Committee also recognises that this was a single incident in a long career. It accepts that he has shown insight into his shortcomings. He understands what went wrong and why. The Committee was impressed with Mr Eccles’ statement of apology in his oral evidence today.”

“The Committee found the language which he used in answering its questions, as to the effect compliance with the undertakings has had upon him professionally, reassuring. He said he had been rejuvenated and stimulated; he had renewed enthusiasm for the profession. The Committee commends him for exceeding the minimum requirement of the undertakings, despite the stressful context of the Covid-19 pandemic.”

In considering its sanction for the original admitted charges from November 2018, the Committee considered that a reprimand and warning as to future conduct was the most appropriate and proportionate sanction.

The full findings for the case can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

David Chalkley MRCVS has been suspended for three months by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after it found him guilty of serious professional misconduct over bovine tuberculosis (bTB) testing at a Cheltenham farm in March 2018.

Mr Chalkley faced three charges against him. The first was that he failed to identify some or all of the animals tested with Intradermal Comparative Tuberculin (ICT) tests at the farm.

The second charge was that Mr Chalkley had certified that he had carried out ICT tests on 279 animals at the farm and recorded the results on the accompanying paperwork but had, in fact, not adequately identified some or all of the 279 animals and had fabricated the skin thickness measurements recorded for some of them.

In addition, the charge alleged that Mr Chalkley’s conduct was dishonest, misleading and risked undermining government testing procedures designed to promote public health.

The third charge was that between June 2011 and September 2018, Mr Chalkley received payment of approximately £20,000 for ICT tests when, as a result of his conduct in relation to ICT tests at the farm, he was not entitled to such payment.

At the outset of the hearing Mr Chalkley admitted the first charge, that he had not adequately identified some of the animals.

On the third day of the hearing, during his evidence to the Committee, he admitted that his certification of the ICT testing was therefore misleading.

He denied the rest of the charges including that his conduct had been dishonest and that it had risked undermining government testing procedures designed to promote public health.

In considering the charges against Mr Chalkley, the Committee heard that discrepancies regarding the tests that were carried out on the farm in March 2018 were originally raised by the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA), on whose behalf Mr Chalkley carried out ICT testing in his capacity as an Official Veterinarian.

When Mr Chalkley gave evidence during the hearing, he explained that he had taken over TB testing for the farm in 2008 and that working conditions on the farm had been difficult throughout the whole period 2008 to 2018. He stated that due to the harsh weather conditions of early 2018, TB testing was difficult, and that the farmer needed to complete the test by March 2018 to avoid a financial penalty.

Mr Chalkley explained that one of the reasons for there being limited time available for him to carry out the test within the time required by the farmer was that he was due to provide veterinary cover at the Cheltenham races the following week and he was unable to find anyone else to cover the tests. Mr Chalkley also explained that during the tests on 5 and 8 March there had been limited farmhands available to assist in processing the cattle through the tests.

In the course of being asked questions by counsel for the RCVS, Mr Chalkley accepted that he had failed to identify some 45% of the animals he had injected on 5 March 2018 and had, in respect of each of the skin thickness measurements for those animals, randomly chosen a figure that he believed would be appropriate based on the breed, age and sex of the animal.

The APHA guidelines state that specific measurements should be made and recorded for each individual animal using callipers. Mr Chalkley said that he could not remember seeing the “pop-up” declaration which appeared when submitting the results to the APHA online and had never read it. He stated that he was not aware that he was making a declaration.  However, he accepted that as an Official Veterinarian he was confirming that he had carried out the test properly. While he agreed that he knew that the test contained inaccuracies, he did not accept that he was being dishonest when he submitted the results.

Having considered all the evidence put forward by the RCVS and Mr Chalkley in his own defence, the Committee found that Mr Chalkley had acted dishonestly in deliberately choosing not to take the measurements on 5 March and had instead submitted fabricated alternatives, and so risked undermining public health by failing to carry out his duties as an OV.

The Committee also concluded that Mr Chalkley had been acting dishonestly, as he  knew that he was submitting the test results as if they were the authentic outcome of a properly conducted test when in reality, they were no such thing.

The Committee did not accept Mr Chalkley’s evidence that he was unaware of the declaration which accompanied the submission of the test outcome. The Committee therefore found both the first and second charges proved.

In respect of the third charge the Committee found that this was not proven noting that the RCVS had not disproved Mr Chalkley’s explanation regarding his reasons for returning the £20,000 in fees he had received for carrying out TB testing at the farm from the APHA since 2011.

The Committee then considered whether the first two charges, both of which had been found proven, amounted to serious professional misconduct.

Ian Arundale, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was prepared to accept that the respondent considered the risk arising from his actions as negligible. Nonetheless, in the Committee’s assessment a real risk existed due to the respondent’s actions and it was precisely the risk which the authorised testing procedure was designed to negate. The simple fact is the respondent could not be sure that each animal he assessed on 8 March 2018 had also been seen by him on 5 March 2018.

“However, the wider point with which the Committee was concerned related to the importance of any member of the profession or public being able to rely absolutely on the integrity of veterinary certification. Those parts of the Code and supporting guidance [concerning certification]… were unequivocal. It was very difficult to conceive of circumstances in which it could ever be justifiable to certify the outcome of a test which had not, in fact, been conducted in a way which was demonstrably valid and reliable. Such conduct was bound to be regarded as disgraceful by members of the profession and the general public.

“Honesty is the bedrock of appropriate certification and the Code and Guidance for the Disciplinary Committee is also unequivocal. Dishonesty in professional practice is always an extremely serious matter and the respondent’s responsibilities in the discharge of his functions as an Official Veterinarian were clear. On this occasion those responsibilities had been compromised.

“For these reasons, the Committee has come to the conclusion that the respondent’s conduct in relation to the facts found proved was disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”

The Committee then went on to consider the sanction for Mr Chalkley.

The Committee heard oral evidence in mitigation, including from a former colleague who had worked with him in practice since 2006, as well as receiving a large number of written testimonials from various sources that attested to his honesty, integrity, willingness to help others, and charitable work in support of animal welfare.

Mr Chalkley’s counsel, in mitigation, highlighted his long and previously unblemished career, and characterised the conduct as an inexcusable but explicable error of judgement that was entirely isolated and out-of-character. Mr Chalkley’s counsel added that he had not done anything that he thought was seriously wrong, and there was no evidence that any harm had been done and that any risk to public health was not serious.

The Committee accepted that the conduct was isolated and out-of-character and that, furthermore, Mr Chalkley had made early and frank admissions to the APHA and that he had displayed a degree of insight, although the Committee was less confident that he truly understood the seriousness of the potential consequences of his dishonest conduct.

The Committee took into account the aggravating factors, including Mr Chalkley’s breach of trust of his position as an OV, the undermining of the integrity of veterinary certification, dishonesty and the potential public health impacts of his conduct.

Ian Arundale added: “The Committee considered that, having regard to the mitigating features which it had identified, a suspension order would be sufficient to send to the profession and the public a clear signal about the importance to be attached to accurate certification. The Committee considered that in the particular circumstances of this case, a period of three months suspension would be sufficient to achieve this objective.”

The full findings for the case can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

The RCVS has updated its Code of Professional Conduct to require that before euthanasing an otherwise healthy dog, veterinary surgeons must first scan the animal for the presence of a 'rescue backup'.

The updated guidance follows a public campaign known as ‘Tuk’s Law’, which was started after a healthy dog by that name was euthanased despite its microchip being dually registered with a rehoming centre as a 'rescue backup'.

In response, the RCVS and the BVA agreed that more should be done to prevent occasions where a dog might be needlessly put to sleep, but voiced concerns that a legislative approach could undermine a vet’s clinical judgement, unfairly involve veterinary surgeons in ownership disputes or potential criminality, and leave vets unfairly exposed to financial sanctions.

In consultation with Defra, the RCVS and BVA therefore jointly agreed to strengthen the Code of Professional Conduct as follows:

Chapter 8 (para 8.9)

There may be circumstances where a request is made by a client for the destruction of a dog, where in the clinical/professional judgement of the veterinary surgeon destruction of the dog is not necessary, for instance where there are no health or welfare reasons for the dog to be euthanised.

In these circumstances, before carrying out the request for euthanasia the veterinary surgeon should scan the dog for a microchip and check the relevant database if a microchip is found. 

Chapter (paras 29.25 -29.27)

Clients may have a contract with the shelter from which they acquired the dog such that it can be returned to that shelter, and that it may be appropriate to discuss this with them prior to euthanasia. Alternatively, there may be another individual willing to take responsibility for the dog (who may be named on the microchip database), and this may also be discussed with the client.

The updated guidance supports existing best practice in terms of discussing alternatives to euthanasia with clients, and give vets flexibility where, in their professional judgment, scanning is not appropriate; this might be if scanning would itself cause a welfare problem, or where a vulnerable client might be involved.

The RCVS Standards Committee says it recognised the difficulties experienced by veterinary surgeons in dealing with the current microchip database system, but felt that introducing these provisions into the guidance was a more proportionate response than the alternative of legislation with substantial fines. 

BVA Senior Vice President Dr Daniella Dos Santos MRCVS said: “One of the most important jobs as a vet is having those difficult conversations with clients about euthanasia where we talk through all the options that are in the animal’s best interests. But where the vet doesn’t consider that euthanasia is necessary, the new guidance clearly sets out the steps we need to take. We support this constructive approach that addresses the campaigners’ concerns without undermining veterinary judgement.”