The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has refused an application for restoration to the Register by Mr Joseph Holmes, who was struck off in 2011 for serious professional misconduct associated with surgery he had carried out on a dog and two cats.

At a two-week Disciplinary Committee hearing that concluded on 14 January 2011, two separate complaints had been considered against Mr Holmes, formerly of Waltham Veterinary Clinic, Grimsby. These involved a total of 31 charges, of which 28 were found to amount to serious professional misconduct. Mr Holmes was found to have advised on and undertaken surgical procedures without sufficient clinical grounds or consideration of alternative treatment options; failed to obtain the informed consent of his clients; undertaken procedures outside his area of competence; failed to refer or discuss the option of referral to a specialist; and, failed to provide his patients with adequate pain relief.

The then-Committee directed Mr Holmes' name be removed from the Register, whereupon he appealed to the Privy Council, who dismissed his appeal on 22 December 2011, concluding that removal from the Register "was the only disposal which could properly reflect the primary need to serve both the interests of animal welfare and the reputation of the veterinary profession".

At the hearing last week the Committee considered several factors in relation to Mr Holmes' application for restoration.  Although Mr Holmes gave assurances that he accepted the findings of the original hearing, this contrasted completely to the robust way in which he had challenged all of these at that hearing and the majority in his appeal. Mr Holmes had been off the Register for only 12 months - just over the minimum period before an application for restoral was permitted. The Committee took the view that the application was premature and was not satisfied that Mr Holmes truly appreciated the seriousness of the findings made against him.

In response to questions from the Committee, Mr Holmes showed deficiencies in his knowledge, such as not knowing all of the constituents of the human drug, Anadin Extra, in spite of having produced a record of continuing professional development (CPD) on analgesia and having prescribed it to a dog in the original complaint. He did not provide records of CPD for 2010, 2011 and 2012, and although recognising that working in isolation from the majority of his fellow practitioners had contributed to his failures, he had made very limited efforts to observe first-opinion veterinary practice.

The Committee accepted at face value Mr Holmes' statement that he had not worked as a veterinary surgeon whilst de-registered, and accepted that removal from the Register had had a profound effect on Mr Holmes and his family, including the sale of his practice. It noted that Mr Holmes produced only the testimonials previously submitted to the Privy Council, which were of limited scope.

Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "Having regard to all the factors set out above, the Committee regrets that it is not satisfied that the applicant is fit to be restored to the Register. Accordingly, the application is refused."

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended a Kent veterinary surgeon from the Register for eight months after he was found guilty of dishonest certification.

At the outset of the hearing held on 14/15 December, Takeshi Okano, of Lakeview Veterinary Centre in Deal, Kent, admitted charges that, whilst acting as Official Veterinarian, he had signed a number of certificates when he knew that did not have all the information needed to do so.

On 23 June 2009, Mr Okano had been asked to act as Official Veterinarian to examine four horses and sign the certificates necessary for their export to the USA.  The certificates required Mr Okano to certify he had received a written declaration from the owners that the animals had been in the UK for 60 days previously. Mr Okano also signed certificates indicating that the horses had only been in France, Ireland, or the UK for the same 60-day period. Despite having received no such declarations, and having no information whatsoever of where the horses had been, Mr Okano signed the certificates. At the hearing, no explanation for Mr Okano's actions was offered.

Mrs Beverley Cottrell, Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee said: "The validity of any certificate is an integral part of the system relating to the export or import of animals. At Section G of the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct, emphasis is given to the importance of certification, the importance of the signature and the guidance issued by DEFRA. These provisions are well known to the profession."

The Committee was satisfied that Mr Okano's actions in signing the certificates without the owners' declarations amounted to a serious departure from professional standards.  In reaching a decision on sanction, it considered that, whilst a reprimand or warning would not be appropriate, neither would removing Mr Okano's name from the Register be proportionate, or necessary either in the public interest or to protect animals.

"Mr Okano is a young veterinary surgeon at the start of his career, who from the outset admitted his actions," said Mrs Cottrell noting that the testimonials from veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and clients, and his record of Continuing Professional Development demonstrated his commitment to high standards within the profession.  "In reaching this decision, we have paid particular regard to the fact the false certification was neither persistent nor concealed, nor was he a senior veterinary surgeon."

The Committee directed Mr Okano's name be suspended from the Register for eight months.

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 Disciplinary Committee has refused an application by Kent-based Warwick Seymour-Hamilton to be restored to the Register in order to prescribe his own herbal treatments and to obtain peer review that would allow his treatments to be licensed.

This was the sixth time that Mr Warwick Seymour-Hamilton had applied for restoration after being removed from the Register in June 1994, the reasons for which related to the condition of his practice premises and his record-keeping following an inspection by the RCVS. His most recent restoration hearing took place in May 2017.

In his application Mr Seymour-Hamilton said that he wanted to be restored to the Register to aid his research into herbal medicines and, during the course of the hearing, he also challenged some of the evidence given to the Committee in the June 1994 hearing. In particular he challenged the assertion that his practice was open when it was inspected by the RCVS as, he submitted that, he had retired three weeks’ prior to the inspection due to ill-health. 

Mr Seymour-Hamilton told the Committee that he did not wish to return to clinical practice but wished to restore his membership of the RCVS in order to prescribe his own herbal treatments and to obtain peer review that would allow his treatments to be licensed. Furthermore, he produced, during the hearing, a continuing professional development (CPD) record card in which he had logged 1,438 hours of CPD in 2017.

In considering his application for restoration the Committee dismissed his challenge to the details of his original hearing in June 1994.

Ms Judith Way, Chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee has noted that this issue is ancient. It is not for this Committee to consider it. Moreover the finding of the Committee represents a determination which was not challenged by the applicant until one of the more recent restoration applications. He never appealed it. Nor did he attend at the original hearing. It acknowledges that the premises could well have been closed given their condition, but whether they were or not is not for it [the Committee] to decide. It is quite possible the applicant has persuaded himself of the position. This is not an issue which is a persuasive factor in this application."

Regarding Mr Seymour-Hamilton’s contention that he would use his RCVS registered status to further his research into herbal treatments Ms Way said: "The Committee accepted there were no direct public protection issues which caused it concern, although it did retain some anxiety that the applicant’s commitment to herbal medicine could govern the way in which he would wish to care for an animal. A more rounded veterinary approach, which involved a full evaluation of an animal’s condition, a coherent diagnosis and a subsequent discussion about treatment with the client is called for."

Turning to his CPD she added: "His CPD now has a bias for herbal medicine as does his extensive reading. The Committee was not satisfied that his skills are up-to-date and that he could practise veterinary medicine safely. The Committee was not satisfied that he would approach a sick animal with the full and rounded approach required of a veterinary surgeon. Nor did his confidence in this regard allay the concerns of the Committee. He expressed belief in himself on the basis of his practice which came to an end some 24 years ago."

The Committee did acknowledge that Mr Seymour-Hamilton’s removal from the Register had a considerable impact on him and that, not only is he ashamed of it, but he believes it is frustrating his ability to advance the cause of herbal medicine.

In conclusion, Ms Way said: "Taking all these matters into account, the Committee has concluded that the applicant has not satisfied it on all of the evidence that he is fit to be restored to the Register and so this application is refused."

The RCVS and the BVA have issued a joint statement to help the veterinary profession interpret the guidance released by Government on 19 March about who qualifies as ‘key workers’ in relation to the closure of schools.

The relevant section of the Government advice states: "This [key worker status] includes those involved in food production, processing, distribution, sale and delivery, as well as those essential to the provision of other key goods (for example hygienic and veterinary medicines)."

The RCVS/BVA statement, which is intended to help veterinary surgeons decide whether or not they can claim ‘key worker’ status and ask for their children to continue to be taken into schools, reminds veterinary surgeons to consider the wider societal picture and ensure that they only claim ‘key worker’ status if absolutely necessary.

The statement also stresses that the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct responsibility of the veterinary surgeon to take steps to provide 24-hour emergency first aid and pain relief to animals according to their skills and the specific situation continues, and veterinary practices will need to continue to carry out this work. It is important that animal owners are able to focus on their own health, and not need to worry about their pets. Both the RCVS and BVA believe that veterinary surgeons who are providing this essential work can be considered key workers.

The statement in full is as follows:

Veterinary surgeons as key workers in relation to school closures

RCVS and BVA appreciate that veterinary surgeons will feel a great deal of uncertainty at the present time, and that many will be facing considerable difficulties due to the closure of schools for most pupils.

The official government advice can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-maintaining-educational-provision/guidance-for-schools-colleges-and-local-authorities-on-maintaining-educational-provision.

The guidance emphasises that if children can be at home then they should be, in order to help to prevent the virus from spreading.

The government has granted key worker status by sector rather than profession. Some veterinary work will definitely fall into the ‘key worker’ category. RCVS and BVA are therefore providing some additional advice below, following consultation with the UK Chief Veterinary Officer:

• Vets carrying out work linked to food production
  Veterinary surgeons working in food production from ‘farm to fork’ are considered to be key workers. This includes:
  1. Farm vets
  2. Official Veterinarians working in the food chain, including abattoir and other related inspection and certification work
• Vets working in emergency care
  The responsibility of the veterinary surgeon to take steps to provide 24-hour emergency first aid and pain relief to animals according to their skills and the specific situation continues, and veterinary practices will need to continue to carry out this work. It is important that animal owners are able to focus on their own health, and not need to worry about their pets. Veterinary surgeons who are providing this essential work can be considered key workers.
• Other companion animal practice work
  In light of the Government guidance published on 19 March it is not clear that veterinary surgeons working in companion animal practice can be considered key workers. Veterinary surgeons should consider the possibility of reputational damage to the profession if vets doing work which could be regarded as non-essential claim key worker status at this time, given that we are facing a public health emergency. Anyone doing so must be confident that their claim to key worker status is defensible. Practices may need to rationalise their work and ultimately this must be a decision for individual veterinary surgeons and veterinary practices.

Summary
At this time the provision of public health and the maintenance of food production need to take priority, and veterinary surgeons working in these areas should be considered key workers.

Veterinary surgeons working in emergency care can also be considered key workers. This will not apply to every veterinary surgeon in clinical practice, and practices may need to consider rationalising their services to achieve this.

The guidance has been welcomed by both the BSAVA and BEVA. David Mountford, Chief Executive of BEVA said: "As veterinary professionals we are duty-bound to provide essential care, relieve suffering and protect the health of the public. Recognition as key workers in such circumstances is welcomed but we would encourage vets to only add to the burden faced by schools where animal welfare is at risk and all other avenues have been explored."

Mandisa Greene has been elected Junior Vice-President of the RCVS for 2019-20.

Mandisa (pictured right) was first elected to Council in 2014 and then re-elected last year. She is currently Chair of the Practice Standards Group, which coordinates the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme, and a member of the Primary Qualifications Subcommittee and the Legislation Working Party. She has also served on Standards Committee and as well as chairing the Extra-Mural Studies (EMS) Coordinators Liaison Group.

Born in the UK, and raised in Trinidad & Tobago in the West Indies from the age of two, Mandisa moved back to the UK aged 18 to study for a BSc in Biological and Medicinal Chemistry at the University of Exeter. She then gained her veterinary degree from the Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies at the University of Edinburgh in 2008.

Since graduating, her interests have lain in small animal practice and emergency and critical care, and she has worked as a veterinary surgeon in a number of practices in the West Midlands. She currently works for Medivet in the Staffordshire town of Newcastle-under-Lyme and lives in Stoke-on-Trent. She is a published author, having been the researcher on a paper about genomic variations in Mycobacterium published in BMC Microbiology.

More information about RCVS Council and its members can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/who-we-are/rcvs-council/

Photo: Copyright RCVS

The RCVS has announced that over the next few years, it is planning to roll out a new outcomes-based model of continuing professional development (CPD), whereby practitioners will be obliged to reflect upon what they learned and to record their reflections.

A shift towards a more outcomes-based model of CPD for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses has been under discussion for a number of years and one of its main proponents has been the current RCVS Senior Vice-President Professor Stephen May (pictured right), who chaired the CPD Policy Working Party. 

Stephen said: "There has been increasing recognition over a range of different professions that CPD records based on ‘inputs’ alone, for example, measuring the number of hours attending a lecture, do not necessarily prove that any significant learning has taken place or that this learning will be used to improve professional practice. 

"By contrast, research has demonstrated that CPD activities focused on outcomes encourage professionals to reflect on what they have learned, how they will apply their learning and how it will improve their practice, which has a positive impact on professionalism and patient health outcomes. Numerous other professions, including human medicine and dentistry, have moved to this model and the veterinary world has been somewhat ‘behind the curve’ as a result.

"However, as with any significant shift in policy, there has been a recognition that we needed to take the profession with us and not force through change. This is why, in March 2017, we launched a pilot scheme for the outcomes-based model with veterinary and veterinary nurse volunteers, including people who, during the initial consultation stage, had voiced some skepticism towards the concept.

"The overall feedback from volunteers was very positive and supportive towards the changes and I look forward, over the coming years, to talking to the professions at large about the benefits of the approach and how to best engage with the model."

In all, around 120 volunteers took part in the pilot, of whom 70% were veterinary surgeons and 30% veterinary nurses. When the pilot finished in October 2018, volunteers provided feedback as part of the evaluation process. Of the 57% of volunteers (n=70) who responded to the survey: 

• 77% said they would be willing to use an outcomes-based CPD model in the future; 

• 41% found it ‘easy’ or ‘very easy’ to implement outcomes-based CPD while only 11% thought it was either ‘difficult’ or ‘very difficult’;

• 61% thought that the outcomes-based model made CPD more meaningful for them and 25% said it encouraged them to undertake a wider range of CPD activities than previously;

• Other feedback included the need for a better CPD recording system and more information and guidance ahead of any future changes. 

Following the feedback, particularly around the need for a new approach to CPD recording, it was also recommended to Council that a new online CPD recording system should be introduced. This system will integrate the current disparate systems, such as the Student Experience Log (for vet students), Nursing Progress Log (for student VNs) and the Professional Development Phase (for recent vet graduates), making it a ‘one-stop shop’ professional development recording platform.

Richard Burley, RCVS Chief Technology Officer, said: "We will be building a new platform, consolidating all professional development-related capability for all members, into a single, integrated solution, seamlessly accessible via our ‘My Account’ online portal, and forthcoming mobile app. We have assembled a new, dedicated, software development team to drive this work and more details about this system will be published in coming months."

Linda Prescott-Clements, RCVS Director of Education, added:"Following the approval of the CPD proposals by RCVS Council, a phased roll-out of the new model and the accompanying IT system will take place. This includes recruiting a group of volunteers from the profession later this year to get some initial feedback around the guidance resources and online CPD platform, with members of the profession being voluntarily able to sign up to the new model and IT system from January 2020 onwards. 

"Implementation of the new CPD requirement for all members is expected to start in January 2022 but, prior to that, we will be working hard to talk to the profession about why an outcomes-based model is a more effective and meaningful way of undertaking CPD and this will include workshops, webinars and roadshows. Look out for more news on our plans over the coming months."

For more information about the College’s current CPD policy requirement and policy, visit: www.rcvs.org.uk/cpd

The RCVS Mind Matters Initiative (MMI) and the Doctors’ Support Network (DSN) are today marking the first anniversary of their joint '&me' campaign, which aims to tackle mental health stigma in the health professions by encouraging prominent members to speak out about their own experiences.

MMI seeks to address mental health and wellbeing issues within the veterinary profession, while the Doctors’ Support Network provides peer support for doctors and medical students with mental health concerns.

&me was launched this time last year at the Palace of Westminster at an event sponsored by Kevan Jones MP (Labour, North Durham,) who has spoken about his own experiences with depression. 

Overall eleven &me ambassadors have volunteered their own stories with mental ill-health:

• Dr Louise Freeman, tribunal member and vice chair DSN
• Dr Angelika Luehrs, consultant psychiatrist and co-chair DSN
• Dr Jonathan Richardson, group medical director for community services, Northumberland Tyne & Wear NHS Foundation Trust
• Dr Caroline Reed O’Connor, a senior trainee psychiatrist and psychotherapist
• David Bartram, RCVS Council member
• Malcolm Kinnear, consultant psychiatrist and Honorary Senior Clinical Teacher at the University of Dundee
• Rob Pettitt, Senior Lecturer in Small Animal Orthopaedics, University of Liverpool
• Professor Jamie Hacker Hughes, consultant clinical psychologist, psychotherapist, and supervisor
• Dr Cathy Wield, emergency medicine doctor and author
• Dr Susan Atcheson, senior GP
• Steve Carter, Director at Priory Veterinary Surgeons

A number of &me ambassadors will be taking part in an ‘&me live’ session at BSAVA Congress, from 5-8 April 2018 in Birmingham, providing a short overview of their story before taking questions from the audience. The session will take place from 8.30 to 10.10am on Saturday 7 April and will be open to all those attending Congress.

Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO and Mind Matters Director, said: "The feedback our &me ambassadors have received is truly heartening.

"Steve Carter, for example, had both an ex-student and colleague comment on his story thanking him for all he’s done, while a Facebook post about Rob Pettitt reached nearly 25,000 people.

"The campaign highlights how it is possible to recover from mental ill-health and flourish in your career, with the aim of encouraging those at the start of their mental ill-health experience to seek appropriate help, whether that is something profession-specific, such as Vetlife or DSN, or their GP."

Louise Freeman, Co-Chair of the DSN, added: "Many healthcare professionals face similar pressures that can lead to mental ill-health, including long hours, intense pressure, and the nature of the job which requires practitioners to constantly provide care for others, without necessarily recognising the need for self-care at the same time.

"A recurring theme that we’ve seen from these ambassadors’ stories has been that they drew on support from friends and family, and we really hope that this campaign encourages other professionals to seek help if they feel they are struggling."

The campaign is interested in hearing from not only doctors and veterinary surgeons but also nurses, veterinary nurses, dentists, pharmacists and other healthcare professionals who want to open up about their experiences of mental ill-health.

To participate in the campaign, email Dr Louise Freeman on vicechair@dsn.org.uk.

Further information about the ‘&me’ campaign can be found at www.vetmindmatters.org/&me, and a blog by Louise, 'Me and #AndMe', can be found at www.vetmindmatters.org/me-and-andme/.

The RCVS has announced that the Disciplinary Committee (DC) and the Preliminary Investigation Committee (PIC) have appointed Ian Arundale and Dr Bradley Viner as their new Chairs, respectively.

Ian Arundale (pictured right) was appointed as the new Chair of the DC following an application process from within existing Disciplinary Committee members, with the final interview panel consisting of Amanda Boag (President at the time), Ian Green (current DC Chair) and Miran Uddin (an independent barrister who works in regulatory law). Ian begins his role as chair in late October.

Ian is Deputy Chief Constable of Cleveland Police in the north east of England and was a police officer for 32 years serving in South Wales, West Mercia and Dyfed-Powys Police Forces. He currently provides expert witness services to inquests, courts and public inquiries. Ian has worked internationally and has assisted police forces and organisations in the USA, India, the Far East and New Zealand. In addition to his work with the RCVS, Ian is also the Chairperson of the Audit Committee for the City of Cardiff Council and is a board member of the International Law Enforcement Forum (ILEF).

Ian said: "I am pleased to have been selected as DC Chair and am looking forward to chairing the committee. The role of the DC is crucial to ensuring the RCVS protects and upholds the high standards of the UK veterinary professions, and I am humbled to be in a position to support this important function."

Dr Martin Whiting has been appointed as the new Vice Chair for the DC. Dr Whiting qualified as a veterinary surgeon from the Royal Veterinary College (RVC) in 2006. Following a few years in practice, he returned to academia to complete a Masters in Medical Law and Ethics and a PhD in the public interest in veterinary professional regulation. Martin was appointed as Lecturer in Veterinary Ethics and Law at the RVC in 2013 and became an RCVS and European Specialist in Animal Welfare, Ethics and Law. In 2017, Martin moved to the Home Office to work with the Animals in Science Committee and is currently the Head of Operations for the Animals in Science Regulation Unit.

Dr Bradley Viner has been appointed as the new Chair of the RCVS PIC and began his role on 1 July 2019.

Bradley was appointed through an independent selection process led by an external HR consultancy, with RCVS Council ratifying the final appointments. Bradley replaces Andrew Ash, who chaired the PIC from July 2015 up until Bradley’s appointment.

Bradley established his own small animal practice in Pinner, Middlesex, which then grew to a group of five practices in north-west London. In 2017 he sold his practices to the Linnaeus Group and now works for them as Group Clinical Quality Lead across all their sites. He was made a Fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons in 2017 for Meritorious Contributions to Clinical Practice. Bradley was an elected member of RCVS Council between 2005 and 2017, including four years as RCVS Treasurer and one year as RCVS President in 2015-16.

Bradley said: "I was delighted to have been selected as Chair of this Statutory Committee as I feel it is one of the most important interfaces between the College, the profession and the public. It has a vital role to play in protecting animal welfare and the reputation of the profession, but I am well aware that fear of disciplinary proceedings can be very stressful to those involved. I undertake to continually strive to work to find a balance that ensures the Committee maintains a well-regulated profession acting in the public interest but also makes every effort to avoid causing unnecessary stress on members that are subject to its proceedings."

More information about the RCVS concerns investigation and disciplinary processes can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns. 

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended Oxfordshire-based practitioner Dr Susan Catherine Mulvey MRCVS for six months, for failing to communicate with clients, professional colleagues and the College.

There were two charges against Dr Mulvey. The first was that, between May and October 2018, she failed to provide the clinical history for an English Cocker Spaniel named Henry to the Tremain Veterinary Group, despite numerous requests. Also, that between August 2018 and October 2018, she failed to respond adequately or at all to Henry’s owner's requests for information, particularly his clinical records and details of insurance claims made for Henry by her practice.

The second charge was that in January/February 2019, she failed to respond to reasonable requests from the RCVS, particularly in relation to her treatment of Henry, her continuing professional development (CPD) and the status of her Professional Indemnity Insurance.

At the beginning of the hearing, Dr Mulvey admitted the facts and conduct alleged in the charges and also admitted that when her conduct was considered cumulatively, she was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

The Committee, having considered the evidence provided by the College and Dr Mulvey’s admissions found all the facts and conduct to be proved.

The Committee also concluded that Dr Mulvey's failure to respond to Henry's owners and to the College amounted to disgraceful conduct both when considered individually and cumulatively.

In respect of the first charge, the Committee decided that Dr Mulvey had breached the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons by failing to provide clinical records or details of insurance claims.

This was an administrative part of the function of a veterinary surgeon’s role and that failure to provide clients with such information was unacceptable and fell far short of acceptable professional standards. The Committee noted that Dr Mulvey’s failure to provide details of insurance claims had occurred because she had not made those claims, despite offering to do so. 

With regard to the second charge, the Committee concluded that Dr Mulvey’s failure to respond to five requests from the College for information about Henry was unacceptable.

The Committee also considered that the omissions took place in the context of Dr Mulvey’s previous Disciplinary Committee hearing in April 2018 during which she agreed to a number of undertakings including supervision on her professional practice by an appointed supervisor. It therefore decided that her failure to provide evidence of her CPD and Professional Indemnity Insurance to the College each individually amounted disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

The Committee then went on to consider the sanction for Dr Mulvey in relation to the both charges that it had found proved and also in respect of the charges it had found proved at its earlier hearing on 26 April 2018 for which sanction had been postponed for a period of 1 year to enable Dr Mulvey to comply with undertakings she gave to the Committee to ensure that her practice met RCVS Core Standards by May 2019.

The Committee heard from Mr Stuart King MRCVS who had been appointed to act as a Workplace Supervisor for Dr Mulvey during the period of her Undertakings. Mr King provided the Committee with a report upon the extent to which Dr Mulvey had complied with the terms of her undertakings including the extent which she had implemented Dr King’s numerous recommendations.

The Committee also heard from Dr Byrne MRCVS an inspector for the RCVS’s voluntary Practice Standards Scheme that Dr Mulvey’s practice, when inspected by him in early April 2019, had not met RCVS PSS Core standards in a number of areas.  

The Committee heard from Dr Mulvey and her Counsel that she accepted that she had not met RCVS Core standards as she had undertaken to do.

In reaching its decision as to sanction for all the matters, the Committee took into account that Dr Mulvey’s misconduct overall was serious because it was repeated.

The Committee also considered aggravating and mitigating factors.

Aggravating factors included the fact that the misconduct was sustained or repeated over a period of time (in relation to charge 1 for a period of approximately 4 months and in relation to charge 2 for approximately 6 weeks).

Other aggravating factors include the fact that Dr Mulvey’s conduct contravened advice issued by the Professional Conduct Department in letters sent to her, and that she had wilfully disregarded the role of the RCVS and the systems that regulate the veterinary profession.    

Mitigating factors included that: there was no harm to any animal; there was no financial gain for Dr Mulvey or any other party; there was no ulterior motive behind Dr Mulvey’s conduct; and that Dr Mulvey had in fact both completed her minimum CPD requirement and secured Professional Indemnity Insurance, demonstrating that she had not attempted to hide such information from the College.

It also took into account that Dr Mulvey, prior to the first Disciplinary Committee’s hearing in 2018, worked without any previous disciplinary findings against her from 1976 to 2018. The Committee also noted that she had made efforts to comply with some of the undertakings. 

Mr Ian Green, Chair of the DC and speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, said: "The Committee considered that a warning or reprimand was not an appropriate sanction that would meet the public interest. Instead, the Committee decided that a suspension order for a period of six months would allow Dr Mulvey sufficient time to focus on ensuring her practice met the Core Standards set out in the Practice Standards Scheme, without the daily demands of practising as a veterinary surgeon, and was a proportionate and sufficient sanction to meet the public interest.

"The Committee was satisfied that a period of six months met the public interest as it was sanctioning Dr Mulvey for two sets of similar misconduct which we had determined overall as serious. The Committee also believed that during these six months Dr Mulvey could reflect and reorganise her practice, and there would be little risk to animals and the public in her returning to practice."

Dr Mulvey has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.

The RCVS has announced that next month, it will be asking veterinary surgeons and nurses for their view on a proposed new framework for post-registration veterinary nursing qualifications which aim to enhance the structure of the veterinary nursing career and introduce an Advanced Veterinary Nurse status.

The proposed framework has grown out of the VN Futures research project, run jointly with the BVNA, which identified developing a structured and rewarding career path for veterinary nurses as one of the key demands of the profession.

It has been developed by the VN Futures Post-Registration Development Group in conjunction with the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Education Committee and Veterinary Nurses Council.

The College says the proposed framework is designed to provide accessible, flexible and professionally relevant post-registration awards for veterinary nurses in order to provide an enhanced level of veterinary nursing practice, while also providing specific modules that veterinary nurses at all career levels can study independently for their continuing professional development (CPD).

Julie Dugmore, Director of Veterinary Nursing at the RCVS, said: "One of the strongest messages that came out of the research we conducted with the British Veterinary Nursing Association prior to the publication of the VN Futures Report was that there was a need for a more structured and rewarding career path for veterinary nurses.

"Throughout the VN Futures roadshow events nurses felt they were often entering a career cul-de-sac after a certain amount of time in practice and so the need for further post-registration qualifications which promote excellence and recognise advanced knowledge, skills, competency and experience in designated areas were strongly expressed.

"We have taken this feedback and developed it into a comprehensive framework for two defined post-registration qualifications and are very interested in hearing what both veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons have to say about all aspects of what we are proposing.

"Once we have collated the responses, we will incorporate the feedback into the framework for further consideration by the relevant committees and VN Council. The eventual aim is that these qualifications will, once sufficiently bedded in, lead to the development of an Advanced Veterinary Nurse status so that members of the VN profession with the sufficient skills and experience will get the recognition they truly deserve."

The two new qualifications included in the framework are a Graduate Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Nursing and a Postgraduate Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Nursing. Details of the courses’ structure, candidate assessment criteria, accreditation standards, student support, candidate eligibility rules, the RCVS enrolment process and the procedures for certification will be set out in a framework document as part of the consultation process. 

The document also includes a prospective list of designations for the two courses covering areas of advanced veterinary nursing knowledge such as wellness and preventative health; rehabilitation and physiotherapy; anaesthesia and analgesia; triage, critical care and emergency nursing; pharmacology; animal welfare; education and teaching; management and leadership; research; and, dentistry. 

The consultation will be launched in early July with an email sent to all veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons containing a link to the survey and asking for their views on the proposals. Details of the consultation, once launched, may also be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/consultations 

The VN Futures Report is available to download from www.vetfutures.org.uk/vnfutures

The RCVS's new Royal Charter has come into effect today, meaning that the whole of the veterinary nursing profession in the UK is now regulated.

The new Charter received the Great Seal of the Realm and was collected from the House of Lords by RCVS Registrar Gordon Hockey and Policy Consultant Jeff Gill (pictured right). It had previously been approved at a meeting of the Privy Council on 5 November 2014.

Under the changes instituted in the new Charter, there are no longer listed veterinary nurses and all those formerly on the List have effectively been moved to the Register and become RVNs.

As a result they will now be expected to undertake the minimum requirement for continuing professional development (CPD) of 45 hours over a three-year period, will need to follow the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses,and will be subject to the College’s disciplinary system in cases of serious professional misconduct. Any veterinary nurse removed or suspended from the Register will not be entitled to give medical treatment or carry out minor surgery.

Gordon said: “This is a proud day for us and an important day for the profession as a whole. We worked very hard to get to this point and I would like to thank all those who helped us along the way including RCVS and VN Council members, College staff and the members of the profession and representative organisations, in particular the BVA and BVNA, that responded to our consultation on the proposed Charter last year.

“This Charter clarifies the role of the College and its aims and objectives while also modernising many of our regulatory functions. This represents another significant step towards the College becoming a first rate regulator.

“Critically, this Charter fulfils one of our long-term ambitions to create a coherent regulatory system for veterinary nurses and to recognise them as true professionals, dedicated to their vocation, their development and proper conduct.”

During this year’s renewal period for veterinary nurses (in the autumn), those formerly on the List will be expected to confirm that they are undertaking CPD and will also need to disclose any criminal convictions, cautions or adverse findings when they renew their registration. The annual renewal fee for veterinary nurses remains unchanged.

A detailed set of frequently asked questions for former listed veterinary nurses can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/rvn.

The RCVS has announced the candidates standing in the 2018 RCVS Council election and is, once again, inviting veterinary surgeons to put questions to them directly in this year’s 'Quiz the candidates'.

There are 10 candidates standing in this year’s election, including four existing Council members eligible for re-election and six candidates not currently on Council. They are: 

• Mr David Catlow MRCVS

• John C Davies MRCVS

• Dr Mandisa Greene MRCVS

• Miss Karlien Heyrman MRCVS

• Professor John Innes FRCVS

• Dr "Not Again" Thomas Lonsdale MRCVS

• Dr Susan Paterson FRCVS

• Mr Matthew Plumtree MRCVS

• Mr Iain Richards MRCVS

• Colonel Neil Smith FRCVS

The biographies and statements for each candidate can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote18.

At the time of writing, the College is still waiting for the Legislative Reform Order (LRO) concerning its governance arrangements, including a reduction in the size of Council, to be approved.

Under current arrangements six candidates will be elected to RCVS Council – however, if the LRO completes the legislative process and is passed by both Houses of Parliament, then only the three candidates with the most votes will take up their places on Council.

Ballot papers and candidates’ details are due to be posted to all veterinary surgeons eligible to vote during the week commencing 12 March, and all votes must be cast, either online or by post, by 5pm on Friday 27 April 2018.

Once again this year the College is inviting veterinary surgeons to email a question for the candidates to vetvote18@rcvs.org.uk or tweet it using the hashtag #vetvote18 by midday on Monday 26 February.

Each candidate will then be asked to answer two questions from all those received, and produce a video recording of their answers. Recordings will be published on the RCVS website and YouTube channel (www.youtube.com/rcvsvideos) on the week the election commences.

Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said:"After last year’s record turnout in the RCVS Council elections we are continuing to work with Electoral Reform Services (ERS) to make it easier for members to vote for their preferred candidates.

"While the traditional paper ballot papers and booklets will be posted as usual, ERS will once again send personalised emails linking members to their unique secure voting website and then send regular reminders to those who haven’t yet had the chance have their say."