The RCVS Council has approved a new project to enhance veterinary clinical career pathways in three ways.

The first is the introduction of Specialist training and status for general practitioners in primary care, for which the RCVS project will now develop a new five-year curriculum and an implementation plan.

The RCVS will also be looking closer at the definition of veterinary clinical roles and developing guidance for the profession and wider public on the different clinical career statuses available to veterinary surgeons.

Thirdly, the College will identify different ways in which vets can access the teaching and learning opportunities, clinical experience/cases, supervision and support that is required for them to complete specialist training and obtain RCVS Specialist status.

This will include looking at how access to specialist training can be widened beyond the typical internship/residency model, to include training models more accessible from primary care practice, and for those at different career and life stages.

Kate Richards MRCVS, Chair of the RCVS Education Committee, said: “These exciting and progressive proposals are visionary as far as the career and development structure of the veterinary clinical profession is concerned.

“It means there will be new prospects for those in general practice and those who want to achieve Specialist status by different means, as well as a more defined career structure for the profession that will be clearer to the profession and general public alike.

"With around 75-80% of veterinary professionals working in clinical practice this project will deliver a substantial positive impact. 

“These are the early pages of a very exciting new chapter for veterinary clinical careers, and we will be asking for your help to write it, as we will be holding a number of consultations in the coming years, including on the programme for Specialist in Primary Care and the definition of clinical roles.

RCVS President Dr Sue Paterson FRCVS added: “There are two aspects of the project that I particularly welcome.

"First is the impact this could have on both recruitment and retention as vets are offered additional, and more diversified, career options and expanded roles in a variety of clinical settings.

"Second, as a specialist dermatologist myself, I really value the fact that we will be looking at ways to widen participation and increase accessibility to specialist training from primary care practice, as the residency/internship route is very intensive and not necessarily suitable for everyone. 

A similar process to develop and enhance clinical career pathways for veterinary nurses is now also being considered, this would include the development of an ‘Advanced Veterinary Nurse’ status and clearer information on the veterinary nursing role and what it entails.

The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has postponed judgment on sanction for 12 months in the case of a Hampshire veterinary surgeon found guilty of serious professional misconduct for cumulative failures to provide adequate professional care, and insufficient regard for animal welfare whilst treating a dog.

At a hearing which concluded last Thursday, Peter Ardle MacMahon MRCVS faced a six-part charge after working as a locum for Vets Now at North End in Portsmouth where, on the night of 14/15 July 2009, he treated Wilfred, a Cocker Spaniel who had ingested broken glass along with raw mince. 

The Committee found that, having decided that surgery was an appropriate treatment, Mr MacMahon had not removed the glass identified on a radiograph. Nor had he even superficially searched the stomach contents he had evacuated to check that a large piece of glass he had previously identified on the radiograph had been removed. He had also not taken adequate steps to prevent contamination of Wilfred's abdominal cavity prior to the incision to the stomach.

Mr MacMahon admitted he knew there had been considerable spillage of stomach contents into Wilfred's abdomen. The Committee found that, with this knowledge, for Mr MacMahon to use only 250ml of fluid to lavage the abdomen was inadequate. This contributed to the Spaniel developing chemical peritonitis which might have developed into septic peritonitis but for a second operation the next morning, after the dog had been returned to the care of his usual veterinary practice. The Committee also expressed concern that Mr MacMahon had failed to effectively communicate the abdominal contamination to Wilfred's usual vets when he was handed back into their care. 

Taken as individual allegations, these would not, in the opinion of the Committee, constitute serious professional misconduct. However, the Committee was of the view that, taken cumulatively, the charges were proved, and therefore the treatment given to Wilfred, fell far short of the standard to be expected in the profession.

When considering mitigating and aggravating factors, the Committee accepted that Mr MacMahon and the veterinary nurse assisting him were unfamiliar with the premises in which they were working, resulting in a difficulty in locating important equipment, and there were also multiple urgent cases during the evening the operation took place. The Committee also noted that 17 months had passed since the operation, and no further complaints against Mr MacMahon had been received by the RCVS.

The Committee further took into account that Mr MacMahon had little recent experience, having returned to practising veterinary medicine in January 2009, following almost ten years spent outside the veterinary profession. During this hiatus he undertook no continuing professional development (CPD), and completed only a five-week period of supervised practice prior to re-entering the profession. 

Mrs Caroline Freedman, Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee said: "The Respondent placed himself in this situation: he knew that he had been out of practice for ten years, had not done any formal CPD during that time and chose to accept an appointment to work as a locum in a sole-charge out-of-hours emergency clinic. A foremost aggravating factor is that animal welfare was adversely affected. A non-critical patient was placed at risk by the Respondent's failures."

The Committee reiterated that the purpose of sanctions was not to be punitive, but to protect animal welfare, to maintain public confidence in the profession and to maintain professional standards.  "A postponement of judgment, with suitable undertakings from the Respondent, is the correct course of action," said Mrs Freedman. Mr MacMahon has subsequently signed undertakings relating to CPD in both surgical and medical disciplines, and the Committee has postponed for 12 months its judgment as to any further sanction.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has postponed judgement on Hertfordshire-based veterinary surgeon Amir Kashiv, who was charged with the inadequate care of a dog, for a period of two years.

At the outset of the hearing, Mr Kashiv, from Vets & Pets, Broxbourne, denied all aspects of the charges against him. During the course of the inquiry, some heads of charge were not pursued and some he admitted, leaving the remaining heads of charge to be determined. 

The charges concerned the treatment of a Scottish Terrier, called Tanzy, whose owner, Mrs Greenhill, brought her in to see Mr Kashiv on 5 March 2015. Mrs Greenhill was concerned about blood in Tanzy’s urine and swellings in her mammary glands. After carrying out a cytopathology test, Mr Kashiv advised Mrs Greenhill that Tanzy would require surgery to remove the mammary glands. There were no further tests conducted, and no alternatives to surgery suggested.

On 13 March another veterinary surgeon at Vets & Pets therefore undertook a right-side mammary strip on Tanzy, discharging her the following day. On 17 March Mrs Greenhill brought Tanzy back in for a post-operative check and was seen by a locum veterinary surgeon, who found her to be in good condition.

On 20 March Mrs Greenhill then became concerned about Tanzy’s deteriorating condition and returned her to see Mr Kashiv. He admitted Tanzy for observation over the weekend but did not conduct any further tests at that stage, apart from radiography on 22 March. The hospitalisation records were of poor quality and substantially incomplete.

On 23 March Mr Kashiv then informed Mrs Greenhill that Tanzy could be discharged, although he recommended an MRI scan to assist in the diagnosis; this was declined on cost grounds. He did not however explain clearly to Mrs Greenhill that Tanzy’s prognosis was bleak, and did not give adequate home care instructions.

Tanzy continued to deteriorate, and on 24 March Mrs Greenhill took Tanzy to the RSPCA Harmsworth Hospital where a veterinary surgeon conducted tests which showed that Tanzy was in renal failure. The veterinary surgeon then called Mrs Greenhill and recommended that Tanzy was put to sleep, which was then performed in Mrs Greenhill’s presence.

The Committee found that Mr Kashiv had failed to conduct the necessary investigations when Tanzy was admitted from 20 to 23 March 2015, being satisfied that, by the time Tanzy had been hospitalised for a period of three days, it was mandatory for a blood test to have been performed, given her marked deterioration.

The Committee also found while Mr Kashiv did express his opinion that Tanzy’s prognosis was poor, he did not give the full explanation required in the circumstances of this case to enable Mrs Greenhill to understand fully the prognosis. The Committee also considered that Tanzy was not in a fit state to be discharged on 23 March 2015, and that he had failed to keep sufficiently clear and/or detailed and/or accurate records.

After full consideration, the Committee found that Mr Kashiv’s actions amounted to serious professional misconduct, and was satisfied that his actions fell far short of the conduct to be expected of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon in respect of heads of charge 1, 2 and 3 but not 4.

Although it was concerned "about the culture of care in the practice, in particular not having in place proper protocols and procedures and without necessary support from properly trained staff", in deciding on appropriate sanction, the Committee was satisfied that there were "a number of serious misjudgements by Mr Kashiv in this case".

The Committee decided to postpone judgement for a period of two years, whilst recommending that Mr Kashiv agree to undertake a structured programme to benefit his clinical practice including a Personal Development Plan, mentoring, practice visits, additional CPD and regular reports to the Disciplinary Committee.

Non-compliance with these undertakings may result in the hearing being resumed at a date earlier than the two-year period.

Stuart Drummond, Chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee considers that Mr Kashiv is a dedicated veterinary surgeon, as evidenced by the large number of testimonials, and that he provides a valuable service to the community, particularly with rescue animals.

"Nevertheless, the Committee considers that there were a number of fundamental failings in Mr Kashiv’s clinical competence which are required to be addressed during the period of postponement. For the reasons set out above the Committee considers that Mr Kashiv’s clinical practice will benefit from a structured programme over the period of postponement, whilst protecting the welfare of animals, maintaining public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct."

For the full charges, findings and decisions, see: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/ 

Chris Tufnell has been invested as the President of the RCVS for 2016/17 during RCVS Day 2016, which took place at the Royal Institute of British Architects last week.

Chris has been an elected member of Council since 2009 and, during this time, has served on the Education Committee, the Examinations Appeal Committee and the Operational Board as Chair of the Education Committee and Junior Vice-President.

He graduated with a veterinary degree from the University of Glasgow at the relatively advanced age of 30 having first attained a degree in Agricultural and Environmental Science from the University of Newcastle. Following graduation he worked in a mixed practice in Herefordshire before buying an equine and companion animal practice in West Berkshire, which currently employs five veterinary surgeons and five support staff.

In his maiden speech, Chris called on veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses to be proud of themselves as people who are committed to the welfare of animals in their care and to not be so hard on themselves.

He also outlined several areas that he would like to prioritise during his presidential year. These included delivering the priorities set out in the Vet Futures Action Plan, exploring bringing veterinary paraprofessionals into the College’s regulatory remit, driving forward the College’s international profile and dealing with blame and fear culture in the profession.

He said: "I’ve seen first-hand in Africa and India what the delivery of veterinary care can do for the welfare of animals in these regions and the wellbeing of people that frequently depend upon them. As one of the richest nations in the world we will further investigate what we can do, through knowledge transfer and support, to help raise the standards of veterinary care in developing countries.

"Sadly we often hear that there are vets and nurses who live in fear of the RCVS. This is something of which I am personally ashamed. Being particularly mindful of the role that fear and anxiety play in mental health, I will do everything I can to replace this fear... I will encourage all hardworking vets and nurses, whichever field they are in, to wear their [MRCVS] ‘badge’ with pride. Feel good about what you do, feel great about what you do."

Chris’ first official duty upon receiving the presidential chain of office from outgoing President Dr Bradley Viner, was to welcome the new Junior Vice-President Professor Stephen May. He also praised Bradley for his calm authority, humour and wisdom throughout his year as RCVS President.

VetSurgeon.org is once again playing host to the RCVS Elections Section, where veterinary surgeons can now come and question the candidates lining up to regulate them.

This year, there are 10 candidates fighting to win one of 6 places on council. You can 'meet the candidates' here, read their manifestos, and then ask them questions either privately - via the 'Start Conversation' link in their profile - or publicly in the RCVS Forum.

There is a new incentive to vote this year: the RCVS will donate 20p to the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) Haiti Earthquake Appeal on behalf of every voter that takes part.

The RCVS has also made it easier to vote, with the addition of SMS text voting to the online and postal options.

However, I hope more than anything else that the opportunity to challenge the candidates and find out what makes them tick in the RCVS Elections Forum will be fun and really help inspire you, the electorate, to get involved.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed that a veterinary surgeon from Berkshire be removed from the Register, following his administration of a prohibited substance to a racehorse and his subsequent attempts to conceal his actions.

At a six-day hearing that concluded yesterday, James Main, a partner in the O'Gorman, Slater, Main & Partners veterinary practice in Newbury, and former lead veterinary surgeon to racehorse trainer Nicky Henderson, faced four charges of serious professional misconduct concerning his treatment of Moonlit Path, a six-year-old mare owned by The Queen.

Three of the charges related to Mr Main breaching British Horseracing Authority (BHA) rules by injecting Moonlit Path with tranexamic acid (TA) on the day she was due to race; the fourth charge related to his dishonest concealment of this treatment in his practice clinical records. Nicky Henderson had himself faced a BHA Inquiry into this case in 2009 and subsequently been sanctioned.

The Committee heard that on 18 February 2009, Mr Henderson's yard requested a veterinary surgeon attend Moonlit Path to administer an injection of Dycenene the following morning. The injection was requested as the mare was prone to exercise-induced pulmonary haemorrhage. Mr Main attended on the morning of 19 February and injected the horse with intravenous tranexamic acid. Moonlit Path raced at Huntingdon later that day, along with the eventual winner, and favourite, Ravello Bay - another horse trained by Mr Henderson. Moonlit Path finished sixth and a urine sample taken from her after the race tested positive for TA.

Of the four charges, Mr Main admitted injecting Moonlit Path with TA on the day she was due to race when he knew this breached the BHA's rule prohibiting any substance other than the horse's usual feed and water being given on race day. However, Mr Main denied knowing that, if tested, a horse would test positive for TA (thereby imposing a strict liability on the trainer); he denied administering a prohibited substance to a horse with the intention to affect that horse's racing performance; and, he denied dishonestly concealing the TA injection by omitting it from his clinical records and referring to it as a 'pre-race check'.

The Committee heard and carefully considered evidence from Mr Henderson and his employees, from BHA investigating officers and its Director of Equine Science and Welfare, from an expert equine physiologist and from Mr Main himself. In its findings, the Committee stated it was "unimpressed by Mr Henderson's evidence and surprised by his apparent lack of knowledge of the rules of racing".

Whilst the Committee accepted Mr Main believed at the time that Moonlit Path would not test positive for TA, it considered he failed to fully inform himself of the medicinal product he was using; especially so as TA does not possess a Marketing Authorisation as a veterinary medicinal product. In so doing, he did not meet his professional obligation to provide Mr Henderson with the information and advice he needed.

The Committee concluded that TA was a prohibited substance and, whilst accepting that Mr Main's concern had solely been for Moonlit Path's welfare, he had actually breached BHA rules by affecting her performance through administering such a substance.

Finally, the Committee found that Mr Main had deliberately concealed the TA injection to Moonlit Path by describing it in his notes as a 'pre-race check' - a protocol developed over several years between the practice and Mr Henderson. Such inaccurate clinical records were in breach of the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct and led the Committee to conclude he had acted dishonestly. The Committee also found Mr Main "did not act with candour" by claiming to have administered the TA injection the day before the race. On questioning by the Legal Assessor, however, he admitted that he had known that Moonlit Path was racing the same day that he administered the injection.

Professor Sheila Crispin, chairing the Committee, said: "[We] regard it as wholly unacceptable practice that a veterinary surgeon should be party to serious breaches of rules of another regulatory body in the field of animal welfare ... and which go to the very integrity of racing.

"Whilst the findings relate to a single incident, [we] are satisfied that Mr Main's actions amounted to pre-meditated misconduct ... It is highly relevant that Mr Main held positions of responsibility within the racing industry where he was required to uphold the rules and standards of the profession," she added.

Noting Mr Main's "long and hitherto unblemished career as a highly respected equine veterinary surgeon", the Committee accepted Mr Main's evidence that the reason for the administration of tranexamic acid was solely his concern about the welfare of the horse. Nevertheless, it found his evidence was "evasive, lacking in candour and on some aspects of the case his evidence was untrue".

Professor Crispin concluded: "...proven dishonesty has been held to come at the top end of the spectrum of gravity of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect ... Having considered carefully all the mitigation put forward on Mr Main's behalf, [we] have concluded that Mr Main's behaviour was wholly unacceptable and so serious that removal of his name from the Register is required."

Building on research undertaken by VetSurgeon.org and Veturse.co.uk in 2017, the RCVS Mind Matters initiative has published the results of a survey which found that 96% of student and newly qualified veterinary nurses feel that bullying and incivility are a serious problem in the profession.

The work done by vetsurgeon.org and vetnurse.co.uk attempted to identify the sorts of unpleasant behaviour that veterinary surgeons and and nurses found themselves on the receiving end of, and the impact that it had on them. It was not, however, able to quantify the prevalence of these types of behaviour other than to the extent that there were 677 reports. 

The new survey of over 650 vet nurses and student vet nurses found that not only did 96% agree or strongly agree that bullying and incivility is a serious problem in the profession, but 70% of respondents had personally experienced a mental health concern as a result.

Other findings from the survey were:

• 20% of respondents had witnessed or experienced discrimination in an educational setting and around 33% of respondents had witnessed or experienced discrimination in a practice setting
• Only 18% of respondents said they believed that veterinary nursing is a well-respected profession
• 82% said that they thought veterinary nursing was a stressful career.
• Just over half (51%) feel positive about their future in veterinary nursing
  However, the survey suggested there was a good level of awareness within the profession about how to access mental health support, with three-quarters (75%) of respondents saying that they knew where to access support for mental health if they need it and almost three-quarters (70%) found their clinical coach supportive.

The full findings of the survey will be revealed at the MMI Student Veterinary Nurse Wellbeing Discussion Forum, taking place on Wednesday 3rd November.

Attendees will have the opportunity to discuss the challenges highlighted in the survey and how they can be addressed. The results will also be published at a session led by Jill McDonald, VN Futures Project Coordinator at BVNA Congress, taking place Saturday 2nd  – Monday 4th October.

Lisa Quigley, Mind Matters Initiative Manager, said: “A number of our survey findings are extremely concerning, particularly the high levels of bullying, incivility and discrimination reported by participants. We conducted the survey with the intention of finding out more about what systemic issues across workplace practices were impacting on the profession’s mental health.

"We want to thank everyone who took part and shared their experiences with us. There were some upsetting accounts shared with us about experiences of bullying and discrimination – no one should go through this at any point in their life, let alone at their place of work.

"Decisive action needs to be taken to tackle this and we will be using the findings of the survey to help form our 2022-2027 strategy and decide what resources and training we create for the profession. Supporting the wellbeing of veterinary nurses and student veterinary nurses is one of our key priorities, and will be part of all future MMI activities.”

“I would encourage as many veterinary nurses and student veterinary nurses as possible to attend the upcoming Student Veterinary Nurse Wellbeing Discussion Forum and our session at BVNA to have your voice heard about what steps need to be taken to improve the mental wellbeing of the profession.

"We recognise that these results may bring some difficult emotions to the fore for many people, and we would encourage anyone who has experienced bullying or discrimination to seek help from an organisation such as Vetlife or the National Bullying Helpline.

"I would urge anyone who witnesses bullying or discrimination in the workplace to speak out, wherever it is safe to do so. This takes immense courage, but it is only by calling out this behaviour that it can begin to be addressed. We will be launching Active Bystander training in early 2022, to equip people with the confidence to call out unacceptable behaviour, and the skills to proactively support colleagues who have been targeted.”

Matthew Rendle, Chair of the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council, added: “As a veterinary nurse some of these results were a difficult read and I would like to thank those student vet nurses and newly qualified vet nurses who came forward with great honesty and bravery with their views and experiences, as it couldn’t have been easy.

“We take these matters very seriously and opening up the conversation is an important first step. I hope that, following these results, we can take look at things such as strengthening reporting mechanisms for bullying and discrimination and encouraging better workplace practices to mitigate against these incidents.

“While it’s easy to focus on the negatives, I do think that these survey results have given us positive steps to build on, not least that people know how to access mental health support so they’re not suffering in silence and the role that our amazing clinical coaches are playing in supporting people with their mental health, and how we can better give them the tools for this support.”

The RCVS Veterinary Nurse Disciplinary Committee has struck off an unnamed veterinary nurse after they were convicted of grooming someone they believed to be aged under 16 for the purposes of sexual gratification.

The Disciplinary Committee took the unusual step of granting an application by the respondent for anonymity, after seeing evidence of a real and immediate threat to the individual’s security if their details were made public.

For the purposes of the hearing, the respondent was therefore referred to as 'X'.

The Committee heard that the individual pleaded guilty in court in 2020 to intentionally and knowingly attempting to communicate with a person under 16 years for the purposes of sexual gratification.

Following this they were sentenced to a two-year probation order, were ordered to register on the Sexual Offences Register for five years; and were made subject to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order for five years.

At the outset of the hearing the individual admitted to all the charges against them and the Committee also noted that there was a certified copy of the conviction available.

The Committee then considered whether the conviction amounted to serious professional misconduct. In considering this, it set out the aggravating factors surrounding the case, these being that there was the risk of actual harm to a minor, that the misconduct was premeditated as the respondent had sent a number of messages via a number of online platforms over several days, that the individual displayed predatory behaviour including sending pictures and making comments of a sexual nature, and that it involved what the respondent believed to be a vulnerable individual, namely a 15-year-old child.

In mitigation, the Committee considered that there had been no actual harm caused to a human or animal in light of the fact that the 15-year-old child, who the respondent believed they were communicating with, was not real. It also took into account that the conduct related to a single isolated incident and that the individual had made open and frank admissions at an early stage.

Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was satisfied that the sentence imposed on X, which included X being subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order until 2025, resulted in the profession of veterinary nurses being brought into disrepute and, in the Committee’s judgement, public confidence in the profession would be undermined if the Committee did not find that the conviction rendered X unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse.”

In considering the individual’s sanction, the Committee heard from a character witness who said that the respondent’s actions were out of character, that they had a previously long and unblemished career, that they had made full admissions and demonstrated insight, and that they had a low risk of reoffending in the future.

Cerys said: “The Committee accepted that X had been an excellent veterinary nurse and that X’s criminal conduct did not relate to X’s practice as a veterinary nurse. However, in the Committee’s judgement, the aggravating factors outweighed the considerable mitigating factors in this case.”

She added: “The Committee decided that a suspension order was not the appropriate sanction for such a serious offence because it did not reflect the gravity of X’s conduct. In the Committee’s judgement, the wider public interest, that is the maintenance of the reputation of the profession and the College as a regulator, required a sanction of removal from the Register. The Committee considered that X had much mitigation and was clearly a dedicated veterinary nurse but the reputation of the profession was more important than the interests of X.

“Further, the Committee noted that in circumstances where X’s probation order expired in 2022, and where the ancillary orders, a Sexual Harm Prevention Order and a requirement to register on the Sexual Offences Register did not expire until 2025; the only proportionate sanction was to direct the Registrar to remove X’s name from the Register of Veterinary Nurses.”

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

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) has launched a revamped, online-only course aimed at veterinary surgeons and nurses who have qualified outside of the UK and recently started practising, or intend to practise, in the UK.

The ‘Introduction to the UK veterinary professions’ is a two-part online course run in partnership with VDS Training, designed to equip vets and nurses with the insight needed to work in the UK veterinary profession.

Due to the coronavirus pandemic, the course has been moved online. It includes a series of free online pre-recorded talks from representatives at a number of different veterinary organisations, including the RCVS, VDS Training, the British Veterinary Association, Vetlife, and VetAbroad.

The talks cover a variety of topics such as the Code of Professional Conduct, how to find the right job for you, how to look after mental health and wellbeing, and recognising and understanding cultural differences.

There will then be a number of live Question and Answer sessions across different dates over the coming months [see below], which are also free to attend, so those who have watched the videos can ask further questions from some of the speakers themselves.

Part 2 of the course is an optional practical and participatory paid-for online live communications skills training session run by VDS Training, looking at how to navigate some of the most common pitfalls encountered during client consultations, helping to equip you with the skills and confidence to communicate effectively in practice.  

Ian Holloway, RCVS Director of Communications, said: “While we enjoyed running this course in person and meeting veterinary professionals from all over the world, the coronavirus pandemic has also given us the opportunity to look at how we can make this course even more accessible for a greater number of people.

“While there is still a significant live element, albeit online for the time being, the pre-recorded talks enable those veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses to do much of the learning in their own time, without having to take time off work or travel to London for the day, meaning that more people can engage with this crucial information on working in the UK.”

Elly Russell MRCVS, a consultant at VDS Training, added: “Communicating with clients can be one of the most rewarding, but also challenging parts of our jobs as veterinary professionals. Communication problems lead to complaints, increase your stress at work and can impact the care our patients receive. Join VDS training for a highly interactive, online 4-hour workshop. Work in small groups with our experienced facilitators and role players using realistic scenarios to practise and develop your communication skills. Let us help you feel more confident managing common communication challenges in UK practice: improved communication will help you, your clients, and your patients.”

The dates for the free live 2021 Q&A sessions are:

• Wednesday 19 May 2021 - 7pm to 8.30pm
• Wednesday 1 September 2021 – 7pm to 8.30pm
• Wednesday 8 December 2021 – 7pm to 8.30pm

The dates and times for the paid-for live online communications skills workshops from VDS Training are:

• Thursday 20 May 2021 – 9am to 1pm (4hrs)
• Thursday 2 September 2021 – 9am to 1pm (4hrs)
• Thursday 9 December 2021 -  9am to 1pm (4hrs)

The cost for attending the communication skills session (Part 2) is £150 +VAT per person. It is not mandatory to complete both parts of the course, but those who are interested may choose the part of the course most suitable for them.

For further information: www.rcvs.org.uk/overseas-cpd

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

There are eight candidates (well, seven really, if you exclude the 'Donald Trump' candidate) contesting six places in the RCVS Council, including four existing Council members eligible for re-election and four new candidates. They are: 

• Mr Christopher Barker MRCVS
• Ms Amanda Boag MRCVS
• Dr Melissa Donald MRCVS
• Miss Lucie Goodwin MRCVS
• Mr Thomas Lonsdale MRCVS
• Professor Stephen May FRCVS
• Dr Cheryl Scudamore FRCVS
• Dr Christopher (Kit) Sturgess MRCVS

Ballot papers and candidates’ details are due to be posted to all veterinary surgeons eligible to vote during the week commencing 14 March, and all votes must be cast, either online or by post, by 5pm on Friday, 29 April 2016.

To submit a question to the candidates, email it (NB only one per person) to vetvote16@rcvs.org.uk, post it on the College’s Facebook page (www.facebook.com/thercvs) or on twitter using the hashtag #vetvote16, by midday on Monday, 29 February.

Each candidate will then be invited to choose two questions to answer from all those received, and produce a video recording of their answers. All recordings will be published on the RCVS website on Thursday 17 March.

RCVS Chief Executive Nick Stace said: "Last year, all election candidates produced videos for the first time and, with over 3,500 views in total, it seemed a popular way for voters to find out more about the individuals who were standing.

"Providing a way for all vets and vet nurses to put their own questions to the candidates is now an integral part of the elections, and one which we hope will continue to encourage people to get involved and have their say."

The RCVS Academy has launched a free scenario-based course to help veterinary professionals respond to complaints with confidence and compassion.

Developed in partnership with the Veterinary Client Mediation Service (VCMS), the course uses practical examples based on real-life experiences.

The course shows how to assess complaints from a client’s perspective and how building client relationships can help defuse complaints.

Jennie Jones, Head of VCMS, said: "Leveraging insights from the VCMS and involving our entire team with its production has enabled us to develop highly effective materials that ensure veterinary professionals are well-equipped to manage complaints."

The course takes one hour to complete.

academy.rcvs.org.uk

The RCVS reports that its Veterinary Client Mediation Service (VCMS) has passed the one-year mark, dealing with over 2,000 disputes between veterinary practices and clients in that time.

The VCMS, which is administered by Nockolds Solicitors, was formally launched by the RCVS as an alternative dispute resolution service in October 2017 following a year-long trial.

The aim of the service is to resolve, by mediation, disputes between clients and veterinary practices that do not meet the threshold of serious professional misconduct that is needed for the RCVS to investigate a concern through its formal processes.

Since the service’s trial, which started in October 2016, the VCMS has given preliminary mediation advice on how to resolve a case in more than 1,700 instances with over 580 cases having gone to full mediation of which 89% have concluded with a resolution. 

Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Director of Legal Services, said: "From the perspective of both the public and the profession, the establishment of the VCMS has been a "win-win" situation. For the public it has provided them with an additional route to solve those complaints which wouldn’t cross the threshold to progress in the concerns investigation process.

"For the profession it has provided a more appropriate format for resolving a client dispute that doesn’t involve the time, effort and formal process of an RCVS investigation for those cases that will never amount to serious professional misconduct. I think this has been demonstrated by the fact that the vast majority of the profession are willing to engage with the VCMS process, even though it is entirely voluntary.

"The VCMS has also had a positive impact on the College and its concerns investigation process, allowing us to focus greater resources on those cases that do meet our threshold of serious professional misconduct. This has had a very clear impact on the speed with which we either close cases or move them on to the next stage of consideration by the Preliminary Investigation Committee (PIC), which, again, is important to both the public and the profession."

The College says that around 90% of cases investigated at Stage 1 of the process are now either closed or referred to PIC within four months – the College’s key performance indicator at this stage. This compares to around 50% of these cases being closed or referred within four months at Stage 1 in 2016.

The College also says that in total (including both preliminary and full mediation cases), 86% of the cases dealt with by VCMS were successfully mediated and feedback from both clients and veterinary practices has been largely positive. In client feedback from the third quarter of 2018, 93% said they would use the VCMS again and 79% considered it to be fair, while the equivalent figure amongst veterinary practices was 94% and 87% respectively.

Jennie Jones, a partner at Nockolds Solicitors who heads up the VCMS, said: "It is a good sign that mediation is largely working as it should when both parties are reporting similar satisfaction rates and we pride ourselves on negotiating resolutions that are acceptable and beneficial for both the clients and the practices.

"It is great to see that our efforts are also having an impact on the RCVS concerns investigation system by allowing it to concentrate on more serious cases."

More information about the RCVS concerns investigation process, including the different stages of an investigation, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns

Further information about the VCMS can be found on its website at www.vetmediation.co.uk or by calling 0345 040 5834.