The RCVS and the Veterinary Council of Ireland (VCI) have issued a joint statement reaffirming the registration protocol for veterinary surgeons and the continued recognition of each other’s accredited veterinary degrees once the transition period arrangements between the UK and the EU end on 1 January 2021.

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 RCVS Standards Committee has approved new guidance on delegating veterinary work to musculoskeletal therapists such as animal physiotherapists.

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 RCVS will be holding two online workshops to give an overview of its 1CPD platform and how to use it most effectively.

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 RCVS Veterinary Nurse Disciplinary Committee has directed that London-based veterinary nurse Paul Chaney is removed from the Register after he was found guilty of a stealing, possessing and unlawfully administering various veterinary drugs, and that he dishonestly made and deleted clinical records about his own dog. 

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/

Following the Prime Minister’s decision to reintroduce national restrictions across England from 5 November until 2 December 2020, the RCVS has updated its guidance which explains the type of work that can be carried out by veterinary practices under varying government restrictions around the UK during the pandemic.

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.

RCVS President Dr Mandisa Greene will be appearing in a special edition of ITV’s current affairs series ‘Tonight’ celebrating Black History Month this Thursday at 7:30pm. 

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 RCVS Disciplinary Committee has found Powys-based Stephen Kiernan Lomax MRCVS not unfit to practise after he was convicted of causing death by careless driving.

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

RCVS Council has voted to make it a requirement that remote prescribing (without physically examining the animal) can now only be carried out by veterinary surgeons who can 'provide a 24/7 follow-up service involving physical examination, plus or minus further investigation, if required’. 

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.

The BVA has called on the RCVS to end temporary guidance that allows veterinary surgeons to prescribe POM-V products remotely without first having physically examined the animal.

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 RCVS has decided to extend its temporary guidance that allows veterinary surgeons to prescribe prescription-only veterinary medicines remotely, without first having physically examined the animal, until the end of September.

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.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has refused Warwick Seymour-Hamilton's eighth application to be restored to the Register since he was struck off 26 years ago.

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

Former Portsmouth-based vet, Simon Wood, who was struck off in 2018 after a conviction for possessing indecent images of children, has had his application for restoration to the Register refused by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee.

Mr Wood pleaded guilty to three charges of making indecent images of children at Portsmouth Magistrate’s Court in December 2017. Following his conviction, Mr Wood was given a community sentence, fined and made subject to a sexual harm prevention order for five years.

Mr Wood’s application for restoration was based on the argument that he was professionally competent to be restored to the Register, that he had strong mitigation for his original conviction (for which he had demonstrated remorse), that he had a low chance of reoffending, had engaged proactively with the Probation Service and rehabilitative courses, and that had completed his community service.

In considering Mr Wood’s application, the Disciplinary Committee took into account a number of factors including Mr Wood’s acceptance of the Committee’s original findings, the seriousness of the original findings, protection of the public, the future welfare of animals in his care should he be restored, the length of time off the Register, his conduct since removal from the Register, efforts by Mr Wood to keep up-to-date with his continuing professional development (CPD), the impact of removal from the Register on Mr Wood and public support for his restoration.

However, on balance, the Committee decided that Mr Wood was not currently fit to be restored to the Register.

Ian Arundale, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "In essence, the Committee decided that the facts of the charge justifying removal from the Register and the underlying criminal behaviour were too serious for Mr Wood to be restored at this time. It concluded that because Mr Wood continued to be subject to a sexual harm prevention order, notification requirements for sexual offenders and because he remained on the Barring List by the Disclosure and Barring service until January 2023, he was not fit to be restored to the Register at this time.

"The Committee accepted that Mr Wood had made significant efforts to rehabilitate himself but it was not persuaded that he was fit to be restored to the Register because ancillary orders relating to the underlying criminal offences remained in force. The Committee noted that at the time those orders were made Mr Wood was described as having an addiction and although the Committee accepted that there was a low risk of future reoffending, it decided that because the orders were still in place for public protection reasons, Mr Wood was not fit to be restored to the Register."

The full report of Mr Wood’s restoration hearing can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

The RCVS Council has decided, by majority vote, to consult with the professions on possible changes to the disciplinary system.

At the meeting, which took place last Thursday, Council members were asked to decide how to proceed with three specific proposals on reforming the disciplinary system:

1. A change to the standard of proof used in deciding whether or not the facts of a case are proven from the current criminal standard (‘beyond all reasonable doubt’), to the civil standard (‘on the balance of probabilities’). Under the proposals, the decision as to whether the proven facts amount to professional misconduct would remain as currently.
2. The introduction of a ‘Charter Case Protocol’ in which cases that meet the threshold for a full Disciplinary Committee hearing, but which might be likely to attract a low sanction, can be concluded without a public hearing. Suitable cases may include those where factors such as insight or remediation have been shown. This, says the College, means that instead of a disciplinary hearing, certain cases might be concluded in a more proportionate manner, for example via a system of publicly-issued warnings and/or advice.
3. To end the current system of initial review of complaints via a Case Examiners Group with the more complex of these cases then reviewed subsequently by the Preliminary Investigation Committee. Instead a single stage review process with complaints considered by a number of ‘mini-Preliminary Investigation Committees’ with three members would be used. This, says the College, would simplify the system and potentially speed up the concerns investigation and disciplinary processes, thus reducing the stress of the process on all parties. Full Preliminary Investigation Committee meetings (involving five Committee members) would still take place to consider the most complex cases.

Acknowledging some of the concerns that have been raised about changing the standard of proof, RCVS Registrar Eleanor Ferguson said: “The RCVS is now one of just a few regulators that still uses the criminal standard of proof in determining the facts of a case. We have sought these changes as part of our ongoing aim to develop a compassionate and forward-looking disciplinary system with the protection of the public absolutely at its heart, whilst also acknowledging the huge toll the process takes on the mental health of veterinary professionals.

"Research that we carried out into the impact of changing the standard of proof indicated that it would not lead to a major increase in cases being referred from the Preliminary Investigation Committee to the Disciplinary Committee. Importantly the number is likely to be very low because the standard of proof only applies to proving the facts of a case; the judgement as to whether proven facts amount to serious professional misconduct will follow the same process as at present.

"We estimated that during 2019, there could have been just two more cases brought to DC under a altered standard of proof, with an additional three cases that were borderline but probably wouldn’t have proceeded any further. Conversely, we also estimated that three cases that did go to DC during 2019 would probably not have done, had the ‘Charter Case Committee’ option been available.

"Ultimately, the aim of the RCVS in regulating the veterinary professions is to protect the public and animal welfare as well as upholding the reputation of the professions. We believe these changes will better achieve that aim."

The consultation on whether to change the standard of proof as well as to introduce the Charter Case Protocol and ‘mini-PICs’ is now planned for later this year.

Further information about the proposals, including some of the arguments for and against changing the standard of proof, can be found in the papers for RCVS Council at: www.rcvs.org.uk/who-we-are/rcvs-council/council-meetings/4-june-2020/ (pages 70-97).