The survey was sent to all UK veterinary practices on the 25th November with a deadline to respond by the 1st December and received 186 responses, a response rate of 6%.
The survey found that during this period:
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, said: “Thank you once again to all the practice staff who took the time to complete this survey, it really is very useful for us to have a clear picture of how coronavirus and its restrictions are affecting day-to-day activities, as it has an impact both on our decision-making and policies, and what we can tell others about the impact on the professions, such as the UK and national governments.
"The overall picture from this survey is that, while for most it is not business as usual, veterinary practices and members of the professions are, to an extent, getting used to the disruption and have plans and policies in place to help mitigate the impact of the mosaic of different restrictions across the UK.
"While there is hope on the horizon with the start of the roll-out of coronavirus vaccines, we will continue to review and keep up-to-date our advice and guidance to ensure that you can practise to the best of your abilities, while keeping safe and within the rules.
“Of course, we also recognise the toll that the pandemic has taken on many people’s mental health and wellbeing, and this is reflected in some of the more concerning statistics around the impact that staff absences can have on the rest of the team.
"We also asked practices what might help them manage from a staff mental health and wellbeing point of view, and will take these suggestions into account when planning further support via our Mind Matters Initiative mental health project. In the meantime, we would like to remind those who are feeling stressed or are in distress that there are sources of help available during these difficult times – these can be found at www.vetmindmatters.org/help-links/help-during-covid-19/.”
The full report of the survey is available to view at www.rcvs.org.uk/publications
David Chalkley MRCVS faces four alleged charges:
At the start of the hearing Mr Chalkley made no admissions as to the charges but he had made an application for an adjournment based on undertakings to remove himself from the Register and never to apply to be restored to the Register.
In addressing the Committee on behalf of Mr Chalkley, his counsel said that Mr Chalkley denied all charges of dishonesty, that there was no evidence of harm to animals as a result of the alleged conduct, that there had been no complaint from the client and that he had repaid all the sums he had received for tuberculin testing on the farm in question.
His counsel also submitted that a full hearing would be expensive and time-consuming, and that it would serve no useful purpose as animal welfare and the protection of the public would be served by Mr Chalkley’s proposed undertakings.
Counsel on behalf of the RCVS confirmed that the College did not oppose the application and confirmed that the Animal Plant and Health Agency did not object.
However, the Disciplinary Committee concluded that because the case concerned issues of alleged dishonesty in veterinary certification over a prolonged period of time and the importance of public trust in the accuracy and reliability of that process, there was a need to hold a full, public hearing into Mr Chalkley’s alleged conduct.
Ian Arundale, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee expressed no view as to whether the allegations could be substantiated or not and it recognised that the process of determining the allegations would be burdensome for many, particularly the respondent.
"It was satisfied, however, that a reasonable and fully informed member of the public would be disturbed to learn that allegations of this kind had not been the subject of a formal determination by the Disciplinary Committee. The respondent’s own interests had to take second place to this important public interest.
“The Committee therefore declined to accept the application to adjourn this inquiry [until an unspecified date] and directed that arrangements should now be considered for the listing of a hearing in this case.”
It is expected that the full hearing will take place in spring 2021.
The full eligibility criteria, including FAQs and guidance notes, for veterinary surgeons who wish to stand for RCVS Council can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil21. The deadline for nominations is 5pm on Sunday 31 January 2021.
Due to the ongoing postal problems caused by the coronavirus pandemic, RCVS Council has approved a temporary change to the RCVS Election Scheme this year to allow nominations to be submitted electronically, rather than in hard copy. This temporary change is currently before the Privy Council for final approval.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for the elections, said: "For prospective RCVS and VN Councils election candidates this will mean that, rather than having to send us hard copies of your nomination documents in the post, these can simply be emailed to the College along with the relevant digital photographs and electronic signatures."
The College has also updated its information and guidance for prospective candidates, including an informal ‘job description’, to help them better understand what it means to be members of RCVS Council, their responsibilities, commitments and how they help the College meet its strategic goals, as well as the principles and rules governing their conduct.
Prospective candidates for RCVS Council can also contact RCVS President Dr Mandisa Greene for an informal conversation on what it means to be a Council member on president@rcvs.org.uk.
Mandisa said: “As I have often said publicly, when I decided to stand for RCVS Council it was out of a mixture of fear and curiosity, the RCVS seemed liked some distant organisation that was often talked about, but not entirely understood, and that made me want to find out more. It is fair to say that, since joining RCVS Council, I have learned and experienced a great deal, have got to know people in our profession that I would otherwise never have had the opportunity to meet, and have been at the forefront of key discussions about how our profession is regulated and its future.
"Throughout my time on Council I have also been a working mother of two young children and so, for those who are concerned about how being a Council member can fit around personal and professional life, I can assure you that there is flexibility that allows you to carry out your Council work around other commitments.
"I do hope that, if you are interested in the future of our professions and having a say in our professional and educational standards and how we are governed, then please take the time to consider becoming a member of RCVS Council and don’t hesitate to get in touch with me if you want to know anything more."
There is one more Council meeting before the nomination period ends. It will take place online on Thursday 21st January 2021 and prospective candidates who would like to get a feel for it are welcome to attend as observers: contact Dawn Wiggins, RCVS Council Secretary, on d.wiggins@rcvs.org.uk.
Laura Padron Vega was struck off in December 2018 after dishonestly backdating two statutory Certificates of Competence submitted to the Food Standards Agency under the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing Regulations 2015.
She was also found to have failed in her duties as an OV because she was unprepared for, and unaware of, the new regulations and did not take adequate steps to ensure that the two people for whom she had given veterinary certification were licensed to perform slaughter in accordance with the regulations.
At the outset of the restoration hearing, Ms Padron Vega admitted her guilt and made representations that she appreciated the seriousness of her actions and that there was no chance of her repeating them. She also produced a number of testimonials, including some from former veterinary colleagues, in addition to evidence that she had endeavoured to keep up-to-date with her continuing professional development while off the Register although this had been difficult due to her financial circumstances.
In considering her application for restoration, the Committee found that Ms Padron Vega had accepted the reasons for her removal from the Register and the seriousness of the findings. It found that she was unlikely to repeat the behaviour and that her conduct had been entirely acceptable since she was removed from the Register. It also considered her financial and personal circumstances, noting the difficulty she had in securing well-paid, full-time employment since her removal from the Register, and the impact that this had on her being able to keep up-to-date with her continuing professional development.
However, the Committee expressed concerns over her efforts to keep up-to-date with the knowledge and skills she would need to return to practice and said she demonstrated “no real appreciation of what she needed to put in place to demonstrate that she can return to work safely”.
In particular it found that the CPD she had undertaken was unstructured and insufficient and that therefore she had not done enough at the present time to demonstrate that she was fit to be restored to the Register, especially as she signalled that, if restored, she hoped to work in small animal practice, an area that she had not worked in for some time.
Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “While the Committee did not consider that the applicant was in a position to return to practice at this point, it did consider that if the applicant applies herself to a properly structured and focused Return to Practice Plan and is able to produce evidence of how she has fulfilled the requirements of that plan, then her application could prove successful within a short time.
"The outcome of the plan for a return to practice will need to ensure the continued protection of the welfare of animals as well as the interests of clients whose animals she might be called upon to treat and, most importantly, the public interest which is founded on a belief that the veterinary certification processes are beyond question or doubt."
In order to allow Ms Padron Vega sufficient time to develop this plan, the Committee adjourned the restoration hearing for seven months (until July 2021).
Ms Jones added: “This adjournment will afford [Ms Padron Vega] an early opportunity to reflect on the concerns of the Committee… and to return with a properly supported programme for the future which will show her understanding of the problems that are likely to face her on her return to practice and her proposals to meet those inevitable difficulties.”
To carry out the practice of veterinary medicine, a veterinary practitioner must be registered in the jurisdiction in which they are practising ie a veterinary practitioner who practises veterinary medicine in the Republic of Ireland must be registered with the VCI; likewise, a veterinary surgeon who practises in Northern Ireland, England, Scotland or Wales, must be registered with the RCVS.
EU Directive 2005/36EC enables a veterinary surgeon who is lawfully established and registered in an EU member state to provide services on a temporary and occasional basis in another member state. This service allows registered veterinary surgeons to occasionally practise in other countries in the European Union for short periods, up to a maximum of 30 days per year.
From 1st January 2021, the Directive will no longer apply to veterinary practitioners from the Republic of Ireland who may want to provide veterinary services in the UK and that they would therefore need to be registered with the RCVS even if provision of these services is temporary and occasional.
However, in October 2019 the Presidents of the RCVS and the VCI signed a Mutual Qualification Recognition Agreement. The agreement means that the degree in veterinary medicine from University College Dublin can be recognised by the RCVS, and the current eight RCVS-recognised UK veterinary medicine degrees can be recognised by the VCI. The recognised qualifications are accepted as the basis for registration to practise veterinary surgery by the RCVS in the United Kingdom and veterinary medicine by the VCI in the Republic of Ireland.
The VCI and the RCVS emphasised that regardless of whether a trade agreement has been signed between the EU and the UK by 1 January 2021, this will have no bearing on the Mutual Qualification Recognition Agreement currently in place.
Niamh Muldoon, CEO and Registrar of the Veterinary Council of Ireland, said: “This historic agreement will enable graduates of Irish and UK veterinary schools to continue to seek to practise in the other country when they wish. We look forward to continuing to collaborate with our colleagues in the RCVS in the future for the benefit of the profession in both countries.”
Mandisa Greene, President of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons said: “I am very glad to be able to affirm our continuing working partnership with our friends and colleagues in the Republic of Ireland. We know that veterinary surgeons based both in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have clients and undertake work on both sides of the border, and this Mutual Recognition Agreement will help to ensure that UK and Ireland-qualified veterinary surgeons are able to register in each other’s jurisdictions where required. I too look forward to continuing to work closely with the VCI both on a bilateral basis, and via pan-European institutions such as the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe.”
The College says its Veterinary Graduate Development Programme (VetGDP), which will be replacing the Professional Development Phase (PDP), has been developed in response to detailed feedback from the profession during the 2018-19 Graduate Outcomes consultation, which looked at how graduates could be better supported during their transition into working life.
One of the main changes will be the introduction of VetGDP Advisers for all new graduates enrolling onto the programme, to provide one-to-one support and advice to help build the confidence and skillsets of new vets.
Practices wanting to employ veterinary graduates from summer 2021 will need to have at least one trained VetGPD Adviser in the workplace. This will involve a short, free online training course and will contribute to their practice being recognised as an RCVS-Approved Graduate Development Practice (for non-clinical settings they will be called RCVS-Approved Graduate Development Employers).
Dr Sue Paterson, Chair of the RCVS Education Committee, said: “When we conducted the Graduate Outcomes consultation, one very clear message that came across from graduates was that they felt there was a need for more bespoke, hands-on and one-to-one guidance from a designated person in their practice.
"The role of VetGDP Adviser is to help graduates identify areas of strength and areas for improvement, to closely monitor and provide feedback on their performance, and to support them in finding their feet as a newly-qualified professional. We hope all this will help increase their confidence and competence and, crucially, ensure we are doing more to retain our young vets in the profession and that this investment in our young talent will, in turn, benefit practices and the profession at large.
“Ahead of the introduction of VetGDP next summer, we want to give the profession advance notice of the coming changes and ask members of the profession who have been on the UK-practising Register for at least three years, and who are passionate about supporting the next generation of vets, to consider becoming VetGDP Advisers.
"We will be introducing free formal online training for VetGDP Advisers from April 2021 but we are asking vets to register their interest as soon as possible so they can find out more about what the role will entail and how it will support new graduates.”
The training will comprise approximately 20 hours of e-learning using a mixture of different methods including case studies, reflective exercises and recorded presentations and will cover topics such as giving effective feedback to support, encourage and motivate; coaching techniques; the provision of guided reflection; goal-setting; reviewing progress; and mentoring.
The training is being provided online by the RCVS and can be undertaken flexibly at any time. It can also count towards the annual continuing professional development (CPD) requirement.
Once an individual has completed the training, and committed to providing the equivalent of at least one hour of support each week per graduate employed, they will receive VetGDP Adviser status. The role will include observing their graduate’s practice and providing feedback and guidance where appropriate.
Veterinary practices with at least one employed VetGDP Adviser will also be formally recognised as an RCVS-Approved Graduate Development Practice, which will indicate that they are able to employ new graduate veterinary surgeons and have the necessary support and development structures in place.
Dr Linda Prescott-Clements, RCVS Director of Education, added: “Developing VetGDP has been a significant step forward in supporting graduates to establish fulfilling veterinary careers. I would like to thank all those members of the Graduate Outcomes Working Group, the Education Committee and RCVS Council who have been involved in putting together the programme, as well as all those veterinary professionals and students whose feedback was crucial in shaping the direction of travel.
“The programme recognises that the profession would like to see a range of ways to support graduates in the workplace, involving a balance between professional and clinical skills. The need was for a programme to reflect their everyday work and professional development in the workplace, with a much greater focus on structured and meaningful support. This support is crucial in developing them beyond their Day-One Competences into becoming confident, capable and independent veterinary professionals.
“As all new vet graduates from summer 2021 will be required to undertake the VetGDP, practices and other workplaces taking on new graduates will need to have at least one VetGDP Adviser and RCVS-Approved Graduate Development Practice status. The online training is not onerous, it is free of charge and takes approximately 20 hours; furthermore, it can be counted towards CPD hourly targets for the year. We envisage that the VetGDP Adviser role will be highly rewarding, with the personal satisfaction of knowing you’re helping to shape and support the next generation of vets.
“Please do make sure to take a look at the full range of resources that we have produced about VetGDP and familiarise yourself with the coming changes.”
To aid understanding of the VetGDP, the RCVS has produced a number of resources, including FAQs, further information for those who are interested in becoming VetGDP Advisers, and information for students, which can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/lifelong-learning/vetgdp
From early 2021, the RCVS will be holding online video seminars with final-year veterinary students from all eight UK veterinary schools to discuss VetGDP in further detail.
Anyone with further questions about VetGDP should contact the RCVS Education Department on vetgdp@rcvs.org.uk
Musculoskeletal therapists currently have their work underpinned by an Exemption Order to the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 which allows them to treat an animal under the direction of a veterinary surgeon who has first examined that animal.
The College says it has recognised that there has been confusion over whether musculoskeletal therapists need a veterinary referral for maintenance work, such as massage, in a healthy animal. This may lead to delays in animals receiving maintenance care.
The new guidance, found in Chapter 19 (www.rcvs.org.uk/unqualified) of the supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct, sets out the existing rules for musculoskeletal treatment of illness, disease or pathology, and clarifies that healthy animals do not need a veterinary referral for maintenance care.
The guidance stresses that musculoskeletal therapists are part of the vet-led team, and that any animal, including healthy ones, should be registered with a veterinary surgeon and referred to a vet at the first sign of any symptoms that may suggest underlying health issues.
The guidance also says that vets should be confident that the musculoskeletal therapist is appropriately qualified; indicators of this can include membership of a voluntary regulatory body with a register of practitioners, and associated standards of education and conduct, supported by a complaints and disciplinary process.
In March 2019 the RCVS published the Review of Minor Procedures Regime (www.rcvs.org.uk/document-library/report-to-defra-on-the-review-of-minor-procedures-regime-and/) which noted that the existing exemption order was not suitable for underpinning the work of musculoskeletal therapists, and recommended that this be remedied by reform of Schedule 3 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, alongside regulation by the RCVS through Associate status for musculoskeletal therapists.
This would allow the RCVS to set and uphold standards for musculoskeletal therapists in a similar way to veterinary nurses, giving further assurance to both the veterinary professions and the public. The recent Legislation Working Party Report recommendations builds on that recommendation, and is currently open for consultation at www.rcvs.org.uk/consultations
The College says that design thinking is a problem-solving process that anyone can use in all areas of veterinary practice. It is a method by which teams can create solutions to problems or challenges using empathy, creative thinking and experimentation.
The 75-minute session will give an overview of the principles behind design thinking, its various practical stages, and how it can be used to tackle challenges and problems within everyday practice.
Sophie Rogers, RCVS ViVet Manager, said: “While design thinking may sound quite theoretical and conceptual, it is actually a very practical problem-solving process that suits busy veterinary professionals and their teams. For example, the webinar will also be applying design thinking to the current backdrop of the challenges posed by Covid-19 and will be using examples that are relevant to the veterinary world to explore how it can help overcome some of these key challenges.
“The webinar will also be interactive, with delegates being sorted into small groups to carry out tasks that bring ideas to life and demonstrate how it supports innovation and working collaboratively.”
The webinar will be hosted by Gill Stevens, the Founding Director of Level Seven, a consultancy that specialises in merging coaching with design thinking methodology as a way to support innovation and team productivity, and Rick Harris, Founder of Customer Faithful, a research-led consultancy, specialising in customer research, proposition design and employee engagement.
You can sign up to the webinar, which will count towards the continuing professional development (CPD) requirement for both veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses, via the ViVet website at: www.vivet.org.uk/design-thinking-webinar-a-practical-approach-to-problem-solving-in-veterinary-practice.
1CPD was launched in 2020 with the aim of providing an easy-to-use platform for veterinary surgeons to use to plan, record and reflect on their continuing professional development (CPD).
The workshops, which are taking place on Wednesday 9th December 2020, are designed to help those who are not yet familiar with the platform, or have some limited experience of it but would like some additional guidance.
The first workshop takes place at midday and is for those members of the profession who haven’t yet used the platform. The session will give an overview of how 1CPD works and the benefits of using it for planning, recording and reflecting on CPD. No prior knowledge is assumed, and complete beginners are especially welcome. There'll be an opportunity to ask questions.
The second workshop takes place at 7pm and is for those who have some experience of using 1CPD but may have further questions, for example, about how to use some of its features such as the planning module and how to best make use of the reflective notes and comments feature.
Both of the workshops will last for approximately an hour each.
Susan Paterson, Chair of the RCVS Education Committee, said: “We’ve seen fantastic take up of the 1CPD platform in less than a year – with around 65% of UK-practising veterinary surgeons and an amazing 80% of veterinary nurses using it to plan, record and reflect on their professional development. The feedback that we receive has been overwhelmingly positive, with the even the more technically-challenged amongst us finding 1CPD intuitive.
"Although the numbers are very encouraging, there is a cohort of people who have not yet actively engaged with the platform and maybe are unsure about using it or are put off by the thought of having to learn how to use a brand new online system. The aim of these workshops is to guide and reassure those who are hesitant that the 1CPD system is very simple and easy-to-use with lots of useful features. In the long run, it will save you a lot of time and effort when it comes to recording your CPD because it’s there on your phone or tablet, ready to update as-and-when you need to."
Richard Burley, Chief Technology Officer for the RCVS, added: “We are very glad that the 1CPD platform developed by our team here has been so well received. We are continuing to improve and update the platform based on user feedback to improve its design and usability and would welcome any further constructive comments that members of the professions have about it. We do hope you those who are both unfamiliar with the system, and those who have used it but need further advice, can join us for these sessions to find out both how to use 1CPD and how to get the best out of it.”
To sign up to one of the workshops, visit: www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/events/1cpd-online-workshop.
For those who aren’t able to make it on the day, recorded versions of all of the workshops will be made available to watch again after the event.
To download 1CPD as an app for use on iOS (Apple) or Android devices, or to access the web version, visit: www.rcvs.org.uk/1CPD
The survey has been sent to 984 veterinary surgeons who graduated from one of the UK’s eight vet schools in 2020 to measure how the pandemic may have affected graduates’ employment prospects, clinical & non-clinical skills, and resilience in the workplace.
The survey has a deadline date of Wednesday 16 December 2020 and all responses to it will remain anonymous while helping to inform future policy on graduate support.
Dr Linda Prescott-Clements, RCVS Director of Education, said: “We know that the coronavirus pandemic has had a disruptive impact on the final stages of education for the 2020 cohort, in terms of clinical placements for extra-mural studies as well as teaching. This survey aims to gauge whether this has, in turn, had a deleterious impact on their confidence with both clinical and non-clinical skills as well as their resilience, for example, in asking for help and support from colleagues, managing their time effectively, and managing complex and stressful situations.
“Employment is another area of concern and in any typical year almost all graduate vets would find work or go on to further study after their veterinary degree had finished. Some anecdotal reports have suggested a perceived or real change to employment prospects this year and so we are hoping to gather some further data to see if there has been a discernible impact on this cohort.
“We are mindful that the pandemic is having a significant impact on all students and we are keen to understand how best we can support them moving forward. I would strongly encourage those graduates who have received the survey, which should only take around 10 minutes to complete, to take part, because the results will help the RCVS and the VSC inform future policies on how we can better support veterinary graduates in 2021 and subsequent years.”
Any graduates who have not received the survey or require further information can contact the RCVS Education Department on education@rcvs.org.uk.
Mr Chaney was charged with stealing Trazadone and Metacam from the Hampstead practice he worked at, and of unlawfully possessing Trazadone and Metacam. He was also charged with unlawfully administering Butorphanol to a dog and failing to record the administration of the drug in the dogs records. He was also charged with making and deleting false entries into the clinical records of his own dog to the effect that it had been seen by a vet at the practice and that Metacam had been prescribed. The final charge was that his conduct over the false records was dishonest and misleading.
The Committee heard that Mr Chaney’s conduct in relation to the first two charges was discovered when, in July 2018, the Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs (Defra), accompanied by police officers, executed a warrant (for unrelated matters) on the property where he lived. During the course of the search, police officers found Metacam and Trazadone in Mr Chaney’s bedroom which did not seem to have a prescription and so Defra officers launched an investigation.
During the course of this investigation, a Defra investigator was also provided with a video and messages that indicated Mr Chaney had unlawfully administered Butorphanol to a Husky dog in frustration with the animal as it was being too noisy.
The Committee heard that, in November 2018, Mr Chaney accepted a police caution in relation to his possession of Trazadone and Metacam, and the unlawful administration of Butorphanol. The Committee also heard that following the police attending his property and finding the medicines, Mr Chaney went on to create false records at the practice in relation to the examination of his dog in order to justify his unlawful possession of the drugs.
The Committee found all the charges against Mr Chaney proven.
The Committee then went on to consider if the charges, taken both individually and in totality, amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional capacity.
Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee had no doubt that administering a sedative to an animal that required prescription by a veterinary surgeon and then failing to record it in the clinical record with the resultant risk to the animal’s welfare due to lack of knowledge of the administration fell far below the expected standard.
"The Committee also considered that possession of prescription only medicines by a registered veterinary nurse, without the sanction of law, having stolen the same from a practice also fell far below the expected standard.
“The Committee also considered that tampering with the clinical record for a dog, in order to create a misleading impression and in doing so dishonestly, was conduct which fell far below the expected standard.
“Taken as a whole, the Committee considered that Mr Chaney’s conduct had fallen far below the expected standard.”
The Committee therefore found him guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional capacity in relation to all seven charges.
It next went on to consider what sanction, if any, to impose taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors.
In considering the aggravating factors, the Committee took into account that Mr Chaney’s conduct had presented a risk of injury to the animal and that much of his conduct was pre-meditated. It also considered that Mr Chaney’s conduct involved a breach of trust to both the practice where he was employed and the owner of the Husky, and it was also an abuse of position in gaining access to and stealing medication. Lastly, because the charges related to two separate incidents, there was a common thread in Mr Chaney disregarding rules on veterinary medicines.
In mitigation, the Committee considered that Mr Chaney had reflected on and gained some insight into his behaviour, and acknowledged he had made admissions at the outset of the hearing, including apologising for and showing regret about aspects of his conduct.
However, the Committee did not believe he had addressed his understanding of the effect that this conduct had on the risk to animals, the standards of the profession or the maintenance of public confidence in the profession. In mitigation the Committee also considered a number of positive character references and his previous good character.
Judith Way said: “The Committee determined that it would not be sufficient in the circumstances of the case, to satisfy the public interest to suspend the Respondent’s registration. In its view this case involved a serious departure from identified professional standards. The disregard had been deliberate, in relation to ignoring legislation in respect of prescription-only medication and dishonesty in stealing medication.
"There was evidence of attitudinal issues in relation to that behaviour and insufficient evidence of the development of insight. The dishonesty in relation to the clinical record relating to dog O [his own dog] had been an attempt to conceal earlier dishonesty relating to the theft of the medication. In administering the Butorphanol to dog L [the Husky], Mr Chaney had been putting his own interests in quieting the dog ahead of the dog’s interests, which would have required checking with a veterinary surgeon as to appropriate steps.
"The Committee acknowledged that, by directing removal, there would likely be professional reputational damage to Mr Chaney and possible financial loss. However, in the view of the Committee the requirements of the public interest outweighed these factors.”
Accordingly, the Registrar of the RCVS was directed to remove Mr Chaney’s name from the Register of Veterinary Nurses.
Full details can be found here: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/
The College has confirmed that it has now received an official complaint about the matter and it is now investigating under its normal 'concerns' investigation process.
Professor Argyle made a private statement about the allegations to RCVS Council at its meeting today, having already answered written questions from a number of Council members in the preceding days.
The Council did not ask Professor Argyle to step aside, but acknowledged that this was his choice, made for personal reasons.
The College said that in line with its normal protocols, and to ensure fairness for all parties, it will not make any further public comment about the investigation for the time being. However, it wanted to stress that it remains firmly committed to following due and proper process in all its regulatory activities.
Generally, veterinary practices may remain open, but there are national variations in what services should be offered and how, including the conditions under which remote prescribing can be used to help support a case.
Wales currently has the tightest ‘firebreak’ restrictions, meaning practices can only provide essential and urgent work until midnight on 8 November 2020, thereafter, returning to usual operations in line with Wales’ standard measures around workplace safety.
England and Northern Ireland are under national restrictions (4 Nov – 2 Dec, and 16 Oct – 12 Nov, respectively), meaning practices can provide treatment essential for maintaining animal health and welfare, along with non-urgent work providing that social distancing measures and safe working can be maintained.
Veterinary surgeons practising in these three countries may also choose to support a case remotely at an earlier stage, for example, through the remote prescribing of POM-Vs without first having conducted a physical examination.
Scotland remains the only country under regional tiered restrictions, meaning practices can continue to provide treatment whilst maintaining social distancing; however, before remote prescribing is offered, veterinary surgeons should first consider whether the animal can be brought under their care.
The full guidance and corresponding flowcharts should be consulted together and are available at www.rcvs.org.uk/covidfaq2and www.rcvs.org.uk/covidfaq4.
Allegations were reported both in The Times, and the Veterinary Record.
In its statement, the College said: "We know that the University of Edinburgh takes any such accusations extremely seriously and that its inquiry fully and robustly investigated the claims in 2019. This inquiry found no evidence of misconduct, a decision that was later upheld after an appeal.
The College recognised the massive impact that bullying can have on anyone who has been subject to it and acknowledged that the individual accounts published in the Veterinary Record were upsetting to read. However it also drew attention to the 'huge amount of stress that can be caused by ‘trial by media’, especially when an inquiry has concluded that there were no issues to be found'.
As to the role of the RCVS Junior Vice-President, the College pointed out that this is a matter for RCVS Council, as the postholder is elected by Council.
Professor Argyle will be making a statement to Council at its next meeting on 5th November, after which Councillors will be able to ask any questions they have, and then consider the matter.
Meanwhile, the College has asked the Vet Record whether any of the people who made the anonymous testimonials would like to supply any information directly.
The programme, which will look at the achievements and contributions of people of African and Afro-Caribbean descent, will see Dr Greene being interviewed by presenter Alex Beresford alongside a number of other prominent black Britons including athlete and broadcaster Colin Jackson, publisher and author Margaret Busby, Mayor of Bristol Marvin Rees, and nurse and academic Dame Elizabeth Anionwu.
Mandisa said: “I am immensely honoured to be the first Black President of the RCVS and to use this opportunity to speak to the black community, and indeed all communities, about my love of veterinary science and the importance of the work we do in safeguarding animal health and welfare and wider public health.
"I am a great believer in the phrase ‘if you see it, you can be it’ and I hope that my various talks this month and, particularly the upcoming ITV documentary, will help people recognise that veterinary professionals can come from a diverse range of backgrounds and that, provided they have the drive and the ambition, there should be no barriers to them meeting their dreams."
The two sets of guidance cover:
RCVS President Dr Mandisa Green said: “I would like to reassure my colleagues once again that we understand the extreme challenges and difficult decisions they are facing.
"The College has no interest in taking anyone to task for considered professional judgement, providing they act reasonably in the circumstances, can justify their actions and take reasonable notes.
"Sadly, we’re seeing the pandemic situation deteriorating again in the UK, but to varying degrees across the country. This presents a significant challenge in ensuring our guidance is clear and straightforward, while remaining relevant to as many people as possible.
"We sincerely hope this new guidance achieves that aim and supports veterinary professionals working to uphold animal health and welfare, while maintaining the safety of their teams and clients."
For more information, visit: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/advice-and-guidance/coronavirus-covid-19/
Mr Lomax was found guilty of causing death by careless driving at Shrewsbury Crown Court in July 2019 and was subsequently sentenced to a 12-month community order, 300 hours’ unpaid work, 15-months’ driving disqualification and ordered to pay £1,000 in prosecution costs and victim surcharge of £85.
Mr Lomax declared his conviction to the RCVS in April 2020 as part of his declaration upon renewing his registration, following which the RCVS started its concerns investigation process leading to his appearance before the Disciplinary Committee last Monday.
At the outset of the hearing Mr Lomax admitted the charge against him, which was also accepted by the Committee based on its receipt of the certificate of conviction from Shrewsbury Crown Court.
The Committee then considered whether the conviction rendered Mr Lomax unfit to practise. The RCVS submitted that the nature of the conviction and the devastating consequences of Mr Lomax's conduct, which caused the death of a 64-year-old woman, rendered him unfit to practise.
The College also submitted that his conduct would be considered to have fallen far short of the standard expected of a member of the profession, that it had devastating consequences, and that the conviction would have an impact on the reputation of the profession and the public’s confidence in it.
Mr Lomax’s counsel, who represented him during the hearing, submitted that he did not accept his conduct rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon, although Mr Lomax did accept that the impact of his conduct was devastating.
Mr Lomax’s counsel submitted that there was a significant difference between his conduct and its consequences, as evidenced by the fact he was charged with careless driving rather than dangerous driving meaning that, though his standard of driving had fallen below that expected of a competent and careful driver, it did not fall far below. Nor was there a suggestion that Mr Lomax had carried out a deliberate act, was carrying out any dangerous manoeuvres or was otherwise impaired.
Dr Martin Whiting, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “There is no doubt that the consequences of Mr Lomax’s conduct were serious and tragic for the [victim’s] family.
"The Judge at the Crown Court referred to their loss in detail and it no doubt played a significant part in the sentence he passed, as reflected by his comments.
"The Committee was cognisant, however, of the different role it had to perform.
"A criminal conviction marks a breach of criminal law, whereas a finding of unfitness marks a breach of professional standards.
"When looking at the conviction, the Committee focused on the actual conduct of Mr Lomax and the concomitant level of culpability, rather than the consequences. Whilst it would be artificial, insensitive and inappropriate to ignore the consequences, the Committee was concerned with the conduct.”
He added: “The Committee did not consider that Mr Lomax’s conduct was liable to have a seriously detrimental effect on the reputation of the profession and concluded that the public, in full knowledge of the circumstances of this particular case, would not expect a finding that the conviction renders him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
"Rather, the public would recognise that whilst the consequences were appalling for the [victim’s] family, in terms of Mr Lomax’s culpability this was a momentary piece of poor driving rather than anything more blameworthy. At its height it was careless driving for three or so seconds.
"In the Committee’s view Mr Lomax’s careless behaviour fell below, but not far below, the standard expected of a veterinary surgeon and did not amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
The full findings of the Disciplinary Committee can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Mr Wilson faced two charges. The first was that in October 2017, he provided inaccurate information to an insurer in respect of a Labrador he treated by saying that the dog was presented to him with a lame left foreleg on 13 June 2017, when in fact the dog was presented for treatment on 7 June 2017 and that his conduct was therefore dishonest and misleading.
The second charge was that between 17 January 2017 and 17 January 2018 he failed to have any arrangements in place for Professional Indemnity Insurance (a requirement of the Code of Professional Conduct) and then, that between 8 January and 5 December 2019, he failed to respond to reasonable requests from the RCVS regarding his Professional Indemnity Insurance.
Prior to the hearing, Mr Wilson made an application to the Committee to adjourn the hearing subject to the Committee accepting his undertakings to remove himself from the Register and never to apply to be restored.
Mr Wilson’s legal representative at the hearing submitted to the Disciplinary Committee that granting the application would be in the public interest on the basis that Mr Wilson was 68 years of age and had now retired from the profession and closed his practice, that he had dedicated his entire working life to veterinary practice, had a previously long and unblemished career with no other complaints, and that he was well-regarded by clients and professional colleagues.
The application was not opposed by the RCVS whose representative informed the Committee that, relating to the charge of dishonesty, the College had taken into account that the insurance claim form was not submitted by Mr Wilson himself, and that there is no evidence of any financial motivation behind the charge nor any allegation of harm to an animal.
Taking into account the submissions from Mr Wilson’s representatives and from the RCVS, as well as precedent cases for such applications, the Committee decided that Mr Wilson’s voluntary undertakings went well beyond any sanction that could be imposed by the Committee and considered that the application would protect the public interest, confidence in the profession, and the welfare of animals.
Professor Alistair Barr FRCVS, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee decided that this is not a case in which the public interest or the welfare of animals demands that there be a full hearing, with determinations made by the Disciplinary Committee. Taking into account proportionality, and weighing in the balance the public interest, the interests of justice, the need to protect the welfare of animals, as well as the interests of both parties, the Committee decided to accede to the respondent’s application.”
The follow up service ‘can be provided personally by the veterinary surgeon or practice, or by written agreement with a veterinary services provider which is local to the client (as with the current situation for [out-of-hours] care provision)’.
The new rule comes into force on the 1st November, to allow practices to make any necessary arrangements.
The RCVS Council also decided that the temporary derogation from the usual requirement to conduct a physical examination before an animal is regarded as ‘under care’ be reviewed as a standing item at each subsequent Standards Committee meeting, until the normal guidance provisions are fully restored.
RCVS Council had introduced temporary guidance allowing the remote prescription of drugs for animals not under care back in March, to ensure that animal health and welfare could be maintained during lockdown without risking the health of veterinary teams or their clients.
Since then, the College has twice extended this guidance, because of the ongoing situation.
However the College says it now recognises that many practices are returning more to 'business as usual' and that the guidance and associated flowchart should be updated according.
Consequently, before deciding to prescribe POM-Vs remotely, the updated guidance now requires veterinary surgeons to first consider whether the animal is already under their care; or, if not, whether it is possible to physically examine the animal in order to bring the animal under their care. If the answer to both questions is ‘no’, POM-Vs may still be prescribed remotely providing the guidelines set out in the College’s coronavirus advice hub are adhered to.
Surprisingly, the College says that its surveys of the profession have thus far identified no immediate safety concerns around remote prescribing.
RCVS President Dr Mandisa Greene, who chairs the Taskforce, said: “The reason for maintaining the possibility of remote prescribing without a physical examination was that we recognised that the current situation is unpredictable, and while the ability for the public to visit practices in person has improved over the last few months, we felt that situations might still arise where that would not be possible, and where access to remote prescribing would be necessary. These could include further local lockdowns, ongoing quarantine arrangements, and the remaining fact that some members of both the veterinary team and the public continue to shield.
“It remains our intention that this guidance will continue to be a temporary measure and may be subject to further extensions or updates given the uncertain nature of the Covid-19 pandemic.”
RCVS Council will review the position on 8 October, with any changes being effective by 1 November at the earliest.
Meanwhile, the RCVS review of ‘under care’ and out-of-hours emergency cover has now resumed, starting with a number of virtual focus groups and consultation with stakeholders within the veterinary and veterinary nursing professions.
The findings from these focus group discussions will then inform a wider survey to be sent to all veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses in early 2021, along with stakeholder organisations and the animal-owning public. Remote prescribing will continue to form a part of this review.
In mid-September, the Association wrote to the RCVS expressing concern about the August extension to the temporary guidance.
In the latest update from the RCVS, the temporary measure has now been extended to 31 October but the flowchart and guidance have been updated to add some additional steps before a POM-V product can be prescribed remotely.
The BVA says that while it supported the original decision in March as a pragmatic solution and direct response to government restrictions surrounding Covid-19, it is now questioning the ongoing need for such a relaxation in the rules.
In the letter to the RCVS, the BVA also asked for a timeframe for the publication of the results of the RCVS survey of practices’ experiences of remote consulting and prescribing. The Association's own under care working group, chaired by Nigel Gibbens, has been developing a position to respond to the RCVS review.
BVA President James Russell (pictured right) said: "We understand that allowing remote prescription of POM-Vs was a necessary measure at the height of the lockdown, as practices struggled to assess patients in person.
"However, the veterinary professions have done a fantastic job in adapting to the restrictions and are now able to work safely and see patients.
"Whilst we recognise the RCVS has provided additional guidance for the remote prescribing of POM-V, we cannot currently see any reason why a new client would be unable to access in-person veterinary care in the first instance and we are asking RCVS Council to reconsider this measure when it meets in Oct.
"It makes sense to continue allowing vets to remotely prescribe for existing patients, for example if an owner is shielding, but we feel it is no longer appropriate to be remotely prescribing to animals that have never been physically examined by the vet.
“The question of whether we should be able to remotely prescribe POM-V products without first seeing an animal is an important and live debate, and we welcome the resumption of the College’s review. But the longer that temporary measures are in place, the greater the expectation from animal owners that they will always be in place, and the harder it will be to have the discussion about the best way forward.
“As a profession, we are rightly concerned about antimicrobial resistance and we pride ourselves on the responsible use of medicines. Continually extending the temporary measures without a full analysis would risk undermining our position.”
The College first became aware that confidential information had been leaked earlier this year after the Veterinary Record made the decision to publish details.
The College says it then provided a number of informal opportunities for the person leaking the information to come forward and discuss the reasons for their actions, but nobody stepped forward.
A Council member then made a formal complaint about the leak, which triggered the complaints policy set out in the College’s Code of Conduct for Council Members and instigated the investigation.
The investigation was run independently of the RCVS by an external specialist consultancy, and coordinated by a legal assessor.
Initially, the investigators were asked to focus on a single leak, but following a number of further leaks over ensuing months, it became necessary to widen the scope and depth of the investigation.
The investigators’ report concluded that there had been several separate and deliberate leaks of confidential information by a current or former Council member over an extended period.
However, they were not able to identify who specifically was responsible for the leaks, and because nobody admitted it, no further action under the complaints policy of the Code of Conduct for Council Members was appropriate.
The investigators concluded that the leaks were not the result of poor understanding of College or Council processes, but a deliberate decision to provide confidential information to third parties.
Council members have therefore agreed to review existing training requirements and mechanisms for handling confidential information and to explore in more detail the potential motivation of the person or people who leaked the information, together with the underlying culture of Council that might have influenced their behaviour.
RCVS President Mandisa Greene, said: “There is no denying this is a sad day for the College, and for RCVS Council in particular. As Council members of our professions’ regulatory body, we must maintain the very highest standards of probity and integrity if we are to maintain the trust and confidence of our professional colleagues. In the same way, we must subject ourselves to the same level of scrutiny and investigation if these values and behaviours are ever called into question.
“That someone chose to breach the trust placed in them by their peers is extremely disappointing, especially when they were given every opportunity to come forward to discuss their concerns, and avoid the College having to launch a formal investigation.
"Our default position during Council meetings is to hold as many discussions as possible in public session to ensure Council’s decisions are as open and transparent as possible – something that we will continue to increase as much as possible. Like any organisation, however, there may be a small number of issues that need to be discussed in closed session – for example, those still at concept stage prior to any decision being made public or put out for consultation, or those containing personal or commercially sensitive data.
"I sincerely hope that all of us on Council can learn from this unfortunate and unnecessary episode. We must rebuild and maintain sufficient confidence in each other, and in our processes, that, even if we disagree on certain matters, it is always best to do so in a direct, upfront and honest manner."
The guidance has been in place since March to help practices continue to provide the public with veterinary services whilst safeguarding the health of their teams and clients.
The RCVS Council Covid-19 Taskforce reviewed the situation on 30th July and decided to extend the guidance after taking into account the pandemic’s progress, the latest government guidance, the headline results from a survey of practice experience of remote consulting, and 'other data from a number of veterinary practices'.
The Taskforce says it also considered the need to continue to provide practices with flexibility in the face of possible local or national lockdowns, the need for inclusivity of those practice teams members and clients who may still be shielding, the likelihood of quarantine of members of the team due to travel and/or Test and Trace and the fact that no major safety issues had been identified as part of the RCVS-commissioned survey into the immediate impact of the temporary guidance.
RCVS President Mandisa Greene, who chairs the Taskforce, said: “Whilst lockdown measures have been eased and matters have improved, we are far from being back to business as usual and the threat of returning to more severe lockdown measures, whether locally or nationally, is still very much alive."
The updated flowchart, along with all the College’s coronavirus guidance for the professions, is available at: www.rcvs.org.uk/coronavirus.
In her opening address, Mandisa said: "When the College was founded in 1844, it would have been unthinkable that a woman, let alone a black woman, would become President of the institution one day. I am immensely proud of this achievement and, while it clearly demonstrates progress, there is still plenty to do in widening access to our professions.”
She said she hoped to use her position as President to act as a role model to young people from under-represented groups, to encourage them to consider careers in veterinary surgery, and to support those already in the profession.
Mandisa, a graduate of the University of Edinburgh in 2008 and an elected member of RCVS Council since 2014, added: “I also take the Presidential baton from Niall to champion a more diverse and inclusive profession with renewed intention, and look forward to playing my part in our upcoming Diversity & Inclusion Action Plan.
“As recent weeks and the Black Lives Matter movement have highlighted, there is more to be done, and we are committed to doing the work necessary. It is essential that we support all members of the veterinary team to work in an environment that is free from discrimination and racism.”
In another first at the RCVS AGM, Matthew Rendle became the first male veterinary nurse to chair VN Council.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton was originally removed from the Register following an inspection of his Kent practice in 1993 which found that his operating theatre “showed a total disregard of basic hygiene and care for animals and was such as to bring the profession into disrepute”.
Since being removed from the Register, Mr Seymour-Hamilton has made applications for restoration in 1995, 2010, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019. Each was rejected.
In his latest application, Mr Seymour-Hamilton said that he did not want to re-join the Register in order to practise but to facilitate his research in the area of herbal medicine.
The Committee found that while Mr Seymour-Hamilton had accepted some of the findings of the original case, he disagreed with important facts, such as whether or not his surgery was open at the time of the inspection, and showed ‘minimal insight’ into the seriousness of the findings.
The Committee also voiced concerns over public protection and animal welfare should he be restored, saying that he had demonstrated little or no understanding of the purpose of regulation. The Committee also noted that he had, by his own admission, spayed two cats at a practice in Calais in recent years despite his long absence from the Register and unregistered status as a veterinary surgeon in the UK or France.
In considering his conduct since leaving the Register, the Committee found that Mr Seymour-Hamilton had admitted to a number of instances of conduct which it found ‘reprehensible’. This included carrying out spays; not self-isolating after testing positively for coronavirus and, in fact, travelling through France and Spain in breach of the lockdown put in place due to the pandemic; deliberately trying to re-infect himself with coronavirus and then visiting a vulnerable person without maintaining social distancing; treating his own animals with untested herbal remedies; and using his own remedies to treat people, which, in one case, included a nine-year-old boy in Greece.
In summing up Judith Way, who was chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee has concluded that he has not satisfied it that he is fit to be restored to the Register. He has exhibited a disregard for regulation and compliance with the law. He lacks an understanding as to why he has not been restored in the past. He has not set about addressing any of his shortcomings. He relies wholeheartedly on his research, yet he does not support that research with any real peer-reviewed publications and he fails to acknowledge the consequences of being out-of-practice for so long. He has misplaced confidence in his own abilities and does not recognise that his approach and/or actions can represent a danger to animals and to the public. The Committee has therefore reached the conclusion that the applicant is not a fit person to be restored to the Register.”
The full findings of the restoration hearing for Mr Seymour-Hamilton can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary