The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has dismissed a case against a veterinary surgeon from Kent having found him not guilty of serious professional misconduct.
Mr Francois-Guillame Saulnier-Troff - formerly an employee of North Kent Referrals in Blue Bell Hill near Aylesford - was charged with concealing from his clients that a fragment of metal had been left in their dog's body following surgery, and omitting any reference to that in the clinical records or notes.
At the hearing, the Committee heard that, during spinal surgery on Pippin, a Jack Russell terrier belonging to Mr and Mrs Bowers, a small metal fragment broke off a palpator and became lodged in the bony material. Mr Saulnier-Troff was unable to retrieve it.
However, Mr Saulnier-Troff did not inform Pippin's owners of this occurrence, either during the telephone conversation on the 15th of January immediately following the operation, or when he met with them for Pippin's post-operative check on the 2nd of February. He said that he had intended to discuss the fact with the owners when the dog was discharged and had requested that he be contacted when the owners came into the surgery. He had not been contacted, though, and on attending the practice two days later, found that Pippin had already been returned to his owners.
It was accepted by the Committee that Mr Saulnier-Troff had not considered the fragment of clinical significance, and that telling Mr and Mrs Bowers about it was not at the front of his mind at their subsequent meeting.
The Committee heard there was no reference to the fragment included in the clinical notes, discharge summary or referral report, but accepted that the discharge summary had not been prepared by Mr Saulnier-Troff and that the referral report had been drawn up and sent out without Mr Saulnier-Troff's approval or personal signature.
In their findings, the Committee made no criticism of Mr Saulnier-Troff for the breakage or non-retrieval of the fragment, concluding that he came across as a skilled and conscientious veterinary surgeon and that he was fundamentally honest. The Committee also described as "honest and straightforwards throughout," the accounts given by Mr and Mrs Bowers of their recollections of events. The Committee noted that Mr Saulnier-Troff had admitted that he ought to have told Mr and Mrs Bowers about the fragment and that he ought to have included details in the clinical notes.
Disciplinary Committee Chairman Mrs Alison Bruce said that they were "highly critical of the fact that Mr Saulner-Troff did not inform Mr and Mrs Bowers at any time of what had occurred or check that the clinical records had been completed either post-operatively or at the follow-up examination."
"The matters, which Mr Saulnier-Troff has admitted, flow from a failure on his part to speak to Mr and Mrs Bowers after the discharge had taken place and to check that he had completed a full clinical record which included reference to part of the palpator being left in Pippin's body,"
Mrs Bruce continued, adding that this was "indeed conduct which falls short of the standard to be expected. However, in the opinion of this Committee his conduct does not fall so far short that it amounts to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
Mrs Bruce concluded: "In these circumstances, the charge is dismissed."
The RCVS has released the results of a competition held at BSAVA Congress earlier this month, in which veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and other members of the practice team were asked to identify three animals from sound only.
The correct answers were a purring cat, a Chihuahua dog (the breed had to be specified) and a guinea pig.
Of 370 entrants, only 104 (28%) were correct. Some of the more outlandish answers included, for the cat noise: elephant, lion, whale and dolphin; and, for the guinea pig noise: ferret, meerkat, dove, chicken and frog. However, the majority of those getting it wrong were stumped by the requirement to specify the breed of dog, with Jack Russell Terrier or some 'yappy little thing ' proving a favourite.
The winner of the competition was Liverpool-based veterinary surgeon, Anna Rowntree, who won an iPod Nano. She said: "I thought the competition was good fun and a real novelty. It certainly drew me to the stand and was not what I would have expected from the RCVS - it proves they can be approachable! I was very excited to have won and I still can't believe I have."
The noises competition linked to the College's theme for the event, 'Falling on deaf ears?', which examined how the organisation takes account of responses to its consultations, debunking the myth that those who take the trouble to reply are not listened to. The topic was addressed by President Professor Sandy Trees in a presentation on the Saturday of Congress. Visitors to the stand were also given RCVS-branded earphones to reinforce the listening message.
Copies of all three presentations made by the RCVS at BSAVA Congress are now available on RCVSonline (www.rcvs.org.uk/ear_ear). They are:
An online quiz by the RCVS has shown that veterinary surgeons generally have good understanding of the Guide to Professional Conduct, but that misconceptions about the role of the college are rife.
Around 850 people completed the quiz since it was launched in November 2009, with veterinary surgeons accounting for 70% of those that took part. The average score was 20 out of 25
Despite the high average score, there were several questions which a very significant number of people got wrong. The worst related to the role of the RCVS: 76% of people wrongly thought that the College's remit included negligence, whilst 66% believed that the RCVS could not consider criminal convictions (it can).
Nearly half of those taking part were not aware that the standard of proof to which the RCVS Disciplinary Committee must be satisfied is 'so as to be sure' - the same as for a criminal court.
Other questions poorly answered related to 24-hour cover, delegation to paraprofessionals, consent and ownership of records. The RCVS Communications Board will consider how to improve communications in these areas.
In terms of age, the highest scoring age-band was 51-60, achieving an average of 20.5 right answers; the lowest was '30 or under', at 18.7. However, this is not backed up by distribution of complaints to the RCVS, where only 27% of complaints relate to those who have less than ten years' post-qualification experience, although this group makes up 43% of registrations.
The results indicate that there is no significant difference between the genders in terms of Guide knowledge, at 19.54 right answers for men and 19.46 for women. Meanwhile, only 34% of complaints to the RCVS are made about women, while they account for 51% of the Register. However, as women tend to dominate the younger end of the profession, this statistic may be linked to the fact that a greater percentage of complaints relate to older individuals, more likely to be men.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS Head of Communications said: "We hoped the quiz would offer a light-hearted way for vets - and others - to review their knowledge of the Guide, which can be a dry read, and have been pleased with the response.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Trust's Adopt-A-Book campaign has raised almost £17k in sponsorship to pay for the restoration of books in the historical collection.
The latest book to be restored under the scheme is a nineteenth century edition of Every man his own farrier, by F. Clater, which has been restored thanks to veterinary surgeon Fiona Dalzell.
Fiona said: "I have always loved books, and especially old books, but I got inspired by the Adopt-a-Book scheme when I came to the RCVS for a meeting of the Veterinary History Society".
These editions, she says, are "works of art in their own right," and it has given her a "huge amount of pleasure to know that you can do so much just from a small donation."
RCVS Trust Director Cherry Bushell explained the idea behind a campaign: "When you think of 'adoption', you may more readily recall the rescue animals treated in veterinary practices than old books. However, these old books also need your help - and are an important part of the veterinary heritage that the Trust seeks to preserve."
Restoring a book can cost between £25 and £250, and adopted books carry a book-plate naming their benefactor. They can also be dedicated 'in memoriam'.
Since its inception six years ago, the Adopt-a-Book campaign has raised £16, 851, and funded the restoration of 139 volumes:
Those interested in supporting this work by adopting a book can view available titles at www.rcvs.org.uk/adoptabook or contact Clare Boulton, RCVS Trust Librarian (c.boulton@rcvstrust.org.uk or 020 7202 0752).
A Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons audit panel is to visit UK veterinary schools to assess how Extra-Mural Studies (EMS) is being carried out, identify good practice and make recommendations for improvement. The exercise is part of a package of measures which aims to improve the way that EMS helps veterinary undergraduates to gain skills and knowledge in a practice environment.
RCVS Council agreed to the implementation of proposals made by a Working Party set up to review the whole EMS process in November 2009. While the EMS system was largely agreed to be valuable and working well, some areas were identified for improvement. Many of the recommendations centred on a better understanding amongst all parties involved - students, practices and vet schools - of the aims and objectives of EMS for the student, and improved communication about expectations and outcomes.
As a first step, the Education Policy and Specialisation Committee has put in place an audit of EMS at the veterinary schools. It has commissioned Dr Barry Johnson, who led the original Working Party, together with practitioners David Black, David Wadsworth and Dr Chris Chesney, to follow through individual cases, talking to the students, practitioners and clinical tutors and EMS co-ordinators at the vet schools, to build a picture of how administration, communication and follow-up is managed.
Barry said: "The objective of the audit is to identify areas of good practice that can be shared, and identify where improvements could be made - it will also promote dialogue between practices and the schools. The exercise will be repeated over the next couple of years to track changes."
The first audit took place at the Royal Veterinary College in February, as part of the full RCVS visitation of the undergraduate degree programme. The EMS audit panel will report its initial findings in June.
The full report and recommendations from the EMS Working Party can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/EMS.
The RCVS is to embark on a communications campaign over the next few months to raise awareness amongst the general public of the difficulties that vets face in providing out-of-hours emergency cover, and the responsibilities incumbent on animal owners to know what to do in a veterinary emergency.
Emergency cover has been high on the College's agenda for some time.
Over the last 18 months, the RCVS 24/7 Working Party has considered the ongoing desire of vets to continue to offer emergency care 24 hours a day, and the feasibility of delivering this, against a backdrop of the Working Time Regulations, geographical variations in animal and vet density, and increasing practice diversity.
Working Party meetings have been supported by a survey of how vets are currently meeting their 24/7 requirements, a seminar of stakeholders and regular informal polls at RCVS Question Time meetings.
It was agreed at the September 2009 meeting of Advisory Committee, to which the Working Party reports, that the majority of vets remain willing to deliver emergency cover 24/7. Advisory Committee recommended that a communications project be undertaken to help raise awareness amongst the general public and animal owners that although the veterinary profession continues to make this voluntary commitment, EU rules, geography and financial constraints impose some limitations.
This campaign will kick off soon and focus on spreading messages via animal-owner publications and websites. The responsibility of pet owners to know how they can access emergency care for their animal in advance of need will be stressed, as will the fact that in the absence of an NHS for pets, emergency care is a service for which practices must charge a realistic fee (which is likely to be higher than for day-time work).
The campaign will also outline vets' responsibilities as part of the Guide, so the public knows what it can reasonably expect. It would be helpful if practices could ensure they have clear information available on their 24/7 arrangements - as outlined in the Guide - should this campaign stimulate requests from clients.
Jerry Davies, who chaired the Working Party, said: "There is overwhelming opinion within the profession that we must continue to provide round-the-clock veterinary care. The main tenet of the Working Time Regulations is that workers should not have their health or, importantly, skills compromised by unreasonable working patterns. Vets, VNs and the animals they care for deserve the same level of protection.
"However, this legislation has made continuing to provide such care at a reasonable cost to the animal owner a significant challenge. Meeting this challenge will require the understanding and cooperation of the animal owning public.
"If clients can be flexible and accept slightly longer response times, an effective service can still be sustained. The key is for all animal owners to establish, in advance, exactly what will be involved should they need to access veterinary care in an emergency. This simple step will help optimise response times and eliminate the frustration, confusion and inevitable dissatisfaction that may arise if ill-prepared."
Following a five-year review of the Practice Standards Scheme, new standards will take effect from 1 April 2010, and be formally launched at the British Small Animal Veterinary Association Congress in Birmingham (8-11 April).
The Scheme, to which around 50% of practice premises are now signed up, exists to raise standards for the benefit of the public, as well as employees. The review was undertaken by the Practice Standards Group, which includes representatives from all of the key veterinary and veterinary nursing organisations. Its objective was to ensure that standards remain relevant and achievable, while representing better practice. The Group took on board improvements in practice over the last five years, and feedback from inspectors and practices.
Practice Standards Group Chairman, Jill Nute said: "It was important that the Group took account of what the public might reasonably expect of a well-equipped, professional practice. We have made some adjustments to the original standards, placing greater emphasis on clinical outcomes and training."
She added: "To ensure the Scheme goes beyond a 'box-ticking exercise', the emphasis for inspectors has moved towards assessing how standards are applied. For example, not just noting whether a protocol exists for the servicing of anaesthetic equipment, but asking staff involved how this is carried out and what checks are made on a daily basis to ensure the equipment is satisfactory."
The numbered 'tiers' have gone, as these were shown to be confusing. The descriptive categories (Core, GP, Hospital), together with differentiations (equine, small animal, farm animal, emergency services clinic), remain. In addition, to encourage more farm animal practices into the Scheme at GP level, 'where applicable' has been added to certain GP standards, so that those without small animal or equine facilities can comply.
There are some new standards - such as the requirement for annual appraisal systems for all clinical staff. In other cases, as expectations of better practice increase, standards that were previously for Hospitals must now be met by General Practices, and some of those for GPs now apply across the board.
Another change has been in the Manual (see www.rcvs.org.uk/newPSSmanual), which now incorporates guidance alongside the standards rather than in a separate document. The new format clarifies the derivation of each standard, so that legislative requirements are distinguished from those required under the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct and those indicated by better practice.
Practices already on the Scheme will be given plenty of time to comply.
Visit stand 911 at BSAVA Congress for more information, or attend Hall 6 at 3.30pm on Saturday 10 April for a presentation on the changes.
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 Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons last week directed that the name of a man who had been illegally practising as a veterinary surgeon in the North West of England be removed from the RCVS Register, having found him guilty of fraudulent registration.
In March 2008, Russell Lewis Oakes had been charged with fraudulent entry onto the Register of Veterinary Surgeons, on the basis that he had (either (A) knowingly, or (B) unknowingly) submitted a fake degree certificate and letter of 'good standing' from Murdoch University, Australia. Mr Oakes agreed that the hearing could proceed in his absence provided the Committee confined itself to consideration of charge B alone.
The hearing commenced on 18 April 2008, but the Committee decided to adjourn, as Mr Oakes was also subject to a police investigation which required that the hearing be held in private. The Committee felt that it was in the public interest for an open hearing to take place in respect of both charges at a later date. Mr Oakes' bail conditions prevented him from practising as a veterinary surgeon at this time.
On 16 October 2009, Mr Oakes was convicted at Liverpool Crown Court, on a guilty plea, of a substantial number of offences, including those under consideration by the Committee: he was sentenced on 11 January 2010 to two years in prison.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee's hearing resumed and concluded on 5 February 2010. Mr Oakes was not present.
The Committee was provided with evidence from RCVS staff regarding the registration process, and received statutory declarations from representatives at Murdoch University. The latter confirmed that signatures on the certificate submitted by Mr Oakes were fake and that there had never been a student with his name at the University. Furthermore, a letter purporting to be one of support from Professor Edwards of Murdoch University contained text he would not have written and was signed with a false signature.
The Committee was also provided with evidence from equine veterinary surgeon Seamus Miller, who had become suspicious of Mr Oakes' qualifications and membership of the College. He outlined incidents which had cast doubt on Mr Oakes' competence. Mr Miller's complaint had initiated enquires which led to the charges against Mr Oakes by the College, and the Committee recorded its commendation of Mr Miller, and his colleagues.
Having found that Mr Oakes knowingly submitted fraudulent registration documents, the Committee was bound, under Sections 14 and 16 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, and paragraph 17 of the 2004 Rules, to direct that his name be removed from the Register.
Alison Bruce, Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee, said: "Even if it retained any discretion by virtue of Section 16 of the Act in respect of sanction, the Committee would have had no hesitation in directing Mr Oakes' name to be removed from the Register in this case. This was a deliberate and dishonest offence by a man without the necessary qualifications to practise as a veterinary surgeon, and it had the effect of exposing members of the public to his fraud, and their animals to harm."
The College has revised its registration procedures in the light of this case, and now requests that all registrants produce original copies of certificates and letters of 'good standing' at the registration ceremony.
The National Association of Veterinary Physiotherapists (NAVP) is calling for the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) to establish an independent register of veterinary physiotherapy practitioners. According to the Association, such a register would eliminate individuals practicing without proper training and qualifications and raise the standard of veterinary physiotherapy by providing a disciplinary role.
NAVP President and leading veterinary anatomist Dr Sue Kempson is heading the NAVP campaign for the establishment of an independent register. In a letter to the President of the RCVS, Dr Kempson said: "Recognition by the veterinary profession of the role of physiotherapy in post-operative rehabilitation and in supporting both companion and performance animals is growing. However, we do believe that referring veterinary surgeons are increasingly faced with a dilemma caused by the wide differential between qualifications offered by the various organisations representing practitioners in areas such as physiotherapy. There is an urgent need for a distinction to be made between these different types of qualification. To this end, there should be a clearly defined independent register of practitioners with appropriately validated qualifications which are clearly understood by the veterinary profession."
In partnership with Harper Adams University College, the NAVP has introduced a fully-validated post-graduate course in veterinary physiotherapy which offers a choice of Post-Graduate Diploma or Masters Degree. Only one other professional body, the Association of Chartered Physiotherapists in Animal Therapy (ACPAT) currently offers a similar qualification at this level.
Dr Kempson said: "The establishment of a register of physiotherapists would greatly assist vets and their clients to make informed decisions on their choice of therapist. It would eliminate those individuals without proper training and qualifications and help raise the standard of veterinary physiotherapy by providing a disciplinary role. At present there are no sanctions on those people practicing without the necessary qualifications or those whose work is sub-standard or who are guilty of professional misconduct.
"We do not believe that such a register should rest with any individual professional body or be affiliated to specific educational courses. To have authority, it requires independence and a register held under the auspices of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons would carry the credibility that the veterinary profession requires."
The completion date for the RCVS surveys of the veterinary and veterinary nursing professions is Monday 8 February, and the College is urging anyone who has not yet completed their survey to do so.
The data collected will be used to help develop policy, in discussion with government and other bodies, and in response to requests from journalists and members of the public who wish to have an accurate picture of the veterinary profession today. So it's important that as many people as possible complete their surveys.
For the first time, a standard set of questions about well-being (the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale) has been included. Over time, data collected will enable the College to monitor population changes in mental health and well-being, and work with other organisations to address any issues identified.
If you have mislaid your paper copy, the survey can be completed online:
Veterinary surgeons click here: www.employmentresearch.co.uk/vs2010.htm
Veterinary nurses click here: www.employmentresearch.co.uk/vn2010.htm
All responses are confidential.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has directed that the name of a veterinary surgeon who had been practising in Essex be removed from the RCVS Register, having found him guilty of attempting to obtain medicines dishonestly.
James Alexander Lockyear, a graduate from Pretoria University in South Africa, was charged with two offences. The case was heard in his absence, although the Committee did not draw any adverse inference from this. One charge concerned his attempted purchase of steroids from a pharmacy in Colchester by dishonestly representing that the medicine was for legitimate veterinary use. The second charge related to several instances of what the Committee referred to as "inappropriate and unprofessional behaviour", including showing an offensive image to another staff member on a mobile phone, placing the testicle of a castrated dog in his mouth and the misuse of an endotracheal tube.
All of the incidents had taken place between April 2008 and September 2009, while Mr Lockyear was practising as a locum veterinary surgeon at St Runwald's Veterinary Surgery, Colchester, Essex.
The Disciplinary Committee heard evidence from a pharmacist, Mr Noble, to whom Mr Lockyear had presented an incomplete veterinary prescription for 12 ampoules of Sustanon, a prescription-only anabolic steroid for humans, and a further pharmacist, Mr Foskett MRPharmS, who outlined his suspicions that the steroids were in fact for Mr Lockyear's personal use (Sustanon is a substance which can potentially be misused in relation to body-building). Mr Lockyear had originally claimed the drugs were for general stock at the practice; he later returned with a second prescription, for double the amount of Sustanon, claiming it was for his own dog; later again, he said the prescription was for a friend's dog.
The Committee also heard evidence from the veterinary owner of the practice, a veterinary nurse and a student veterinary nurse working in the practice team, and from Dr Maddison MRCVS, an expert on small animal clinical pharmacology. Dr Maddison informed the Committee that there was a veterinary alternative to Sustanon, so it was not necessary for that drug to have been sought by Mr Lockyear. She was also of the view that Sustanon would not have been suitable to treat the ailments for which Mr Lockyear claimed it was to be used.
The Committee found Mr Lockyear guilty of the first charge - that is attempting to obtain medicines dishonestly. Chairing the Disciplinary Committee, Mrs Alison Bruce, said: "Whilst it was a one-off incident, it is conduct which falls far short of that which is expected of a member of the profession. It involves serious dishonesty; it represents an abuse of a veterinary surgeon's authority to prescribe drugs; it is conduct which tends to undermine public trust in the profession, and the honesty of its members; it is conduct which compromised other professionals, the pharmacists involved, and undermined the trust which ought to exist between pharmacists and veterinary surgeons generally, in the important area of drug prescription." The Committee therefore directed that Mr Lockyear's name be removed from the Register.
Regarding the second charge, the Committee was most concerned about the incident relating to the dog's testicles, which it felt offended against Mr Lockyear's duty to treat with respect all animals which were his patients. Taking the three incidents as a whole, the Committee felt that Mr Lockyear should be seriously criticised for behaviour that was "unprofessional... juvenile, inappropriate, disgusting and offensive". However, they felt that the conduct was not malicious, and did not occur in the presence of a member of the public, so concluded that this did not amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The deadline for candidate nominations for the RCVS and VN Council elections is fast approaching - so please hurry if you plan to stand.
There are six seats on the RCVS Council, and two on the VN Council, due to be filled in the 2010 election, but candidate nominations must be received by 31 January 2010.
Jane Hern, RCVS Registrar said: "Getting regulation right is something that all Members and Listed/Registered VNs have power to influence. We know from the reaction we get when we propose changes or ask for your comments that vets and VNs are not backwards about coming forwards - and, like us or loathe us, what the RCVS does impacts directly on the lives of veterinary surgeons and nurses, their clients and patients."
The elections will be held in March, and decided by all veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who use their vote. The results will be announced early in May, with those elected taking their seats at RCVS Day in July and serving four-year terms.
All prospective candidates need to provide the signatures and registered/listed addresses of two proposers, and should also submit a short biography, 'manifesto' and photograph for inclusion in the elections booklets. Nobody can nominate more than one candidate, and no current member of the RCVS Council or VN Council may nominate anyone.
Newly elected RCVS Council members should expect to sit on at least one committee which, together with Council attendances, means a time commitment of at least six to eight days a year. Those elected to the VN Council should expect to spend approximately six to eight days attending Council meetings, working parties and subcommittees. Both RCVS Council and VN Council members' expenditures on hotels and travel are reimbursed. Their employers can also claim a standard day-rate for loss of earnings.
Nomination forms and full details relating to RCVS Council nominations can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk or obtained by contacting the Executive Office (020 7222 0761 or executiveoffice@rcvs.org.uk). Nomination forms and details relating to the VN Council can be requested from Annette Amato (020 7202 0788 or a.amato@rcvs.org.uk). All nominations must be made in writing on the prescribed form and received by the Registrar on or before the closing date of 31 January 2010.
All veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and VN students are to be invited to take part in an RCVS survey of their profession and, for the first time, these surveys will measure mental wellbeing at a population level.RCVS Registrar, Jane Hern said: "Both surveys are being undertaken on our behalf by the Institute of Employment Studies - an independent research organisation. As in previous surveys, all the data will be anonymised by the IES before being shared with us. This will ensure individuals cannot be identified."The information will provide a snapshot of the veterinary profession and help the RCVS to understand and analyse changing trends. Some of the anonymised data will also be shared with researchers at Defra and at the School of Medicine, University of Southampton, who will analyse selected topics in more depth.Jane added: "These surveys produce very useful information about the veterinary and veterinary nursing profession, not least because they usually get a good response rate.
"We will use the information, for example, in our discussions about new veterinary legislation, 24/7 and the Professional Development Phase for newly-qualified vets. So please make sure that you send the form to the IES - or fill it in online - before 8 February."The RCVS normally surveys veterinary surgeons every four years, and last surveyed veterinary nurses in 2008. To obtain concurrent data regarding vets and VNs, both these surveys are taking place at the same time. Forms can by sent back in the freepost envelope provided, or completed online at www.employmentresearch.co.uk/vs2010.htm (vets) and www.employmentresearch.co.uk/vn2010.htm (VNs). The findings of previous studies can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/surveys.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons last week decided that a Lincolnshire-based veterinary surgeon should not be restored to the RCVS Register, having previously struck him off for disgraceful professional conduct, as it was not convinced that he accepted the seriousness of its finding.
In October 2007, Robert Morris, of Brant Broughton, near Lincoln, was removed from the Register having been found guilty of falsely certifying a horse to be fit for sale, despite knowing that it had a respiratory problem that could prejudice its use in the future by its new owners.
At the hearing, which concluded on 7 January, the Disciplinary Committee focused on several areas. On the day following the Committee's decision in October 2007, Mr Morris had falsely certified that two horses had been fully vaccinated every six months by his practice, when he did not know that this was the case. On two occasions during September and October of 2009, he had held himself out to be a veterinary surgeon, including examining, diagnosing and treating animals (horses and dogs). These issues, together with the fact that Mr Morris told the Committee that he was not fully familiar with the Twelve Principles of Certification, as set out in the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct, led the Committee to believe that Mr Morris did not understand the seriousness of his conviction for disgraceful professional conduct.
The Committee also felt that there was a risk to future welfare of animals and protection of the public arising from Mr Morris' failure to understand the importance of certification. That he remained unfamiliar with the veterinary medicines regulations (and had been convicted at Grantham Magistrates Court on 1 November 2007 for possession of unauthorised veterinary medicinal products on 7 March 2006), was also taken as relevant in this regard.
The Committee also took into account the fact that Mr Morris had undertaken only limited continuing professional development since his removal, and it was concerned that it had not been presented with sufficient evidence to confirm Mr Morris' assertion that he no longer suffers from an alcohol problem.
Chairing the Disciplinary Committee, Mrs Alison Bruce, said: "In the light of its finding that Mr Morris does not fully understand the importance of accurate certification, nor of practising as a veterinary surgeon when he was not entitled to do so, the Committee considers that there is a risk to the future welfare of animals in the event of his name being restored to the Register."
She went on to add that in the case of veterinary surgeons continuing to work in a practice when struck off: "It is fully appreciated that veterinary practices may be owned and managed by lay people, however there must be a clear distinction between managing or working within a veterinary practice and practising veterinary medicine. It is of particular importance that any member who has been removed should recognise the difference between these activities. A member who has been removed must refrain from examining animals, making diagnoses or performing treatments, even under the direction of another veterinary surgeon, this includes giving veterinary advice."
The University of Edinburgh and the Royal Veterinary College (RVC) have announced a new initiative to help vet students prepare for their Extra Mural Studies (EMS) placements.
Freda Andrews, RCVS Head of Education said: "This is a free online learning tool which will look familiar to any veterinary student who has recently taken the driving theory test. Any veterinary student can use it as part of their preparation for EMS."
The project was drawn up by Dr Catriona Bell at the University of Edinburgh, and Dr Sarah Baillie at the RVC, two lecturers with experience of practice life who want to make sure that student placements work well for all concerned. The aim is that by helping veterinary students understand what will be expected of them, students can be better prepared and get the most out of their placements.
Sarah Baillie said: "We found that students aren't always aware that doing some simple practical things can make a huge difference to how well their placement goes. There are some common pitfalls, such as not taking a lunch with them so the vet has to find a shop whilst out on call, which can catch out the unwary."
Catriona Bell said that the importance of body language was a consistent theme in the research they undertook for the project: "Students want to do well, however placements are a new environment and can be tiring. Vets are not paid to provide EMS, and say they take on students as they want to support the next generation of vets. Students need to make sure they convey their interest and enthusiasm to all members of the practice team through their body language - they don't always realise, for example, what an impact slouching and looking down at the floor can have."
Other tips for students that came out of the research include making sure that you prepare thoroughly before you go, and offering to help out the veterinary nurses.
Sarah said: "We put in what real students told us they'd wished they'd known. The practising vets who support students also gave us valuable information; for example, by explaining what they expect with regards to confidentiality and professionalism, a working vet's skills."
There is no need for a sign-up for students to use the EMS Driving Licence, and veterinary practices who will be hosting EMS students may also find it useful. To try it out for yourself visit www.vet.ed.ac.uk/ems_driving_licence/
Veterinary surgeon Andrew Reeder, Director of the Stonehenge Veterinary Hospital, in Durrington, near Salisbury, was the lucky winner of a Sony Pocket e-Reader in the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' prize draw at the London Vet Show in November.
The competition was mounted to launch an online quiz to test members' knowledge of the Guide to Professional Conduct. All those who completed the quiz on the RCVS stand at the event were entered into a prize draw: the RCVS would like to stress that it was a random draw, in spite of the serendipity of Andrew's surname!
"This is brilliant, I so rarely win anything!" said Andrew. "I'd recommend that all RCVS members should have a go at the quiz - it's quick, easy to complete and certainly makes you think."
Over 600 people have tackled the quiz so far. Those who fancy testing their knowledge of the Guide should visit www.rcvs.org.uk/guidequiz. The quiz is anonymous, but the College will be collating data to help focus future communications activities and see where extra guidance may be required. On completion of the quiz, it is possible to review answers and view the relevant section of the online Guide.
The WikiQuiz project - a free online question and answer tool which enables vets, vet students and vet nurses to test their knowledge - is now online thanks to £4,770 of funding from the RCVS Trust.
WikiQuiz is a new resource to enable vets and students to structure and direct their learning, and links directly to information on WikiVet, the free research and academic collaboration resource put together by over 40 academics, veterinary surgeons and students from the Universities of Cambridge, Edinburgh and Nottingham, and the Royal Veterinary College (RVC). However, unlike its namesake Wikipedia, WikiVet is designed to be an accurate, peer-reviewed source of information for the veterinary profession and tailored to the undergraduate veterinary curriculum. Some of the material is also of interest to veterinary nurses, in particular those pursuing advanced professional qualifications.
Nick Short, Head of E-Media at the RVC said: "WikiQuiz is purpose-built for vets and students to structure and direct their learning. The questions and answers in WikiQuiz will help vets and veterinary students and work out what topics they might need to study, and link them directly to relevant information published on WikiVet.
"The Wikipedia concept is familiar and popular with students and vets; however, the information on the site can lack quality and relevance", he continued. "In creating WikiVet, we've used the look and feel of Wikipedia - but by making WikiVet available only to veterinary students, surgeons and nurses, introducing a peer-review system and appointing an editorial board to oversee the site, we can ensure the information published is relevant and accurate.
"We are hugely grateful to the RCVS Trust for supporting this project."
Cherry Bushell, RCVS Trust Director said: "Veterinary undergraduates and veterinary surgeons alike need to be able to assess where there are any gaps in their knowledge as part of planning their learning and development. The WikiQuiz resource helps them to do this.
"Using good quality online tools and information can save vets and students valuable time - which is one reason why we chose to support WikiQuiz. The WikiVet project also fits very well with the online Library services provided to vets, veterinary nurses and students by the Trust."
Veterinary surgeons, students and nurses can apply for a free log-in to WikiVet at http://www.wikivet.net/.
Chris Jordan, veterinary surgeon at Companion Care vets in Chingford, Essex, is the 500th vet to sign up to the RCVS Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Practice (CertAVP), which was launched in 2007.
Having completed his Professional Development Phase in July, Chris is now working towards a designated certificate in Small Animal Surgery. He said: "The qualification looks well structured and I think it will serve me well whether I continue as a general practitioner or take up a more surgery-focused role."
Freda Andrews, RCVS Head of Education, said: "The modular approach means vets have much more choice about how and what they study. All certificates show the modules assessed, so that it is easy for veterinary employers to see what a vet has studied, whether or not they have taken a 'named' certificate."
To gain the qualification, vets must first enrol with the RCVS, and then enter for assessment in a combination of core and optional modules through an RCVS-accredited institution. Vets then have ten years in which to complete the qualification. Study can be entirely self-directed; however, there are a number of courses on offer from educational institutions to help vets prepare for assessment. Distance and online learning is a feature of many of these courses.
Vets who want to pursue an area of interest for continuing professional development without working towards any certificate, can equally enrol for assessment in any of the 85 individual modules currently available; this is done directly through the institutions offering assessment and does not need enrolment with the RCVS. Full details of enrolment and module requirements can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/modcerts
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has launched an online quiz to test its members' knowledge of the Guide to Professional Conduct.
The Guide outlines what is acceptable professional and ethical behaviour for veterinary surgeons. It is developed and maintained by the Advisory Committee of the RCVS, which, in addition to veterinary members of RCVS Council, also includes lay members, a member of the Veterinary Nurses Council, and independent (ie non-Council) veterinary surgeons. The Guide is the benchmark against which a veterinary surgeon is judged, by both the Preliminary Investigation and Disciplinary Committees.
The quiz, which was road-tested at the London Vet Show on 6-7 November, is anonymous, but the College will be collating data on results to help focus future communications activities and see where extra guidance may be required.
On completion of the quiz, it is possible to review answers and view the relevant section of the online Guide.
The quiz is aimed at veterinary surgeons: if it's a success, a version for Registered Veterinary Nurses will follow.
To try the quiz, visit www.rcvs.org.uk/guidequiz It will initially be online for three months and reviewed thereafter.
The Disciplinary Committee of the RCVS has approved an application for restoration to the Register from an Oxfordshire veterinary surgeon who had been struck off for false certification.
In November 2007, the Committee decided that Mr John Williams, of the Avonvale Veterinary Practice in Ratley, near Banbury, should have his name removed from the RCVS Register, having found him guilty of disgraceful professional conduct. Mr Williams had admitted signing export health certificates for three horses in October 2006 to state that they had received negative test results for the contagious equine metritis organism, before these results were actually available.
At the time, Mr Williams was working in his capacity as an Official Veterinarian (OV) for DEFRA and he had previously been suspended from his official duties on three separate occasions, on the basis of export certification irregularities. It was accepted that Mr Williams had not been dishonest, but his approach to certification was described by the Disciplinary Committee as "either irresponsible or cavalier or both".
In December 2007, Mr Williams appealed against this decision to the Privy Council but this was dismissed at a Hearing the following June. He was then removed from the Register in July 2008.
When the Committee met on Monday to consider Mr Williams' application, they heard oral and written supporting evidence from veterinary surgeons and equine clients, and oral evidence from Mr Williams himself. The Committee was satisfied that Mr Williams accepted its previous findings and fully understood their seriousness. He described his removal from the Register as a "salutary experience" which had been highly significant for him and his family, both financially and emotionally.
The Committee stated: "Although the decision of the Committee to remove [Mr Williams] from the Register sent a clear message to the profession of the importance of certification, it should be emphasised that his removal was the consequence of his actions in signing certificates which he could not verify. This followed three previous occasions on which he had similarly signed certificates when he should not have done so."
However, the Committee was satisfied that Mr Williams would not in future sign certificates when he should not do so, even under severe client pressure. It was impressed with the continuing professional development he had undertaken whilst off the Register and noted that no questions had been raised over his conduct during this time.
It concluded that Mr Williams fully understood the importance of accurate certification and that restoring his name to the Register therefore posed no risk to animal welfare. Neither the public nor the profession would benefit from Mr Williams staying off the Register for a further period.
Alison Bruce, Disciplinary Committee Chairman, said: "We would like to make it clear that we always find it distressing to remove clinically competent veterinary surgeons from the Register because of an irresponsible and cavalier attitude towards certification. This would not be necessary if veterinary surgeons were to follow the Twelve Principles of Certification annexed to the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct."
The Committee then approved Mr Williams' application and directed that his name should be restored to the Register.
The RCVS is seeking candidates to run for election to the RCVS and VN Councils.
There are six seats on the RCVS Council and two on the VN Council due to be filled in the 2010 election. Candidate nominations must be received by 31 January 2010; voting papers will then be distributed to all veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses eligible to vote, the election held in March and the results announced early in May. Those elected will take their seats at RCVS Day in July to serve four-year terms.
Jane Hern, RCVS Registrar said: "Like us or loathe us, what the RCVS does impacts directly on the lives of veterinary surgeons and nurses, their clients and patients. Getting regulation right is something that all Members and Listed/Registered VNs have power to influence.
"We know from the reaction we get when we propose changes or ask for your comments that vets and VNs are not backwards about coming forwards," Jane continued. "There has been a substantial rise in the number of vets voting, since a low point in voter turnout was reached in 2002. So, if you know someone you think is up to the job, why not persuade them to stand?"
Newly elected RCVS Council members should expect to sit on at least one committee which, together with Council attendances, means a time commitment of at least six to eight days a year. Those elected to the VN Council should expect to spend approximately six to eight days attending Council meetings, working parties and subcommittees. Both RCVS Council and VN Council members are permitted to claim certain expenditures arising from Council-related duties and their employers can also claim a standard day-rate for loss of earnings.
Nomination forms and full details relating to RCVS Council nominations can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil10 or obtained by contacting the Executive Office (020 7222 0761 or executiveoffice@rcvs.org.uk). Nomination forms and details relating to the VN Council will be online shortly at www.rcvs.org.uk/vncouncil10 and can also be requested from Annette Amato (020 7202 0788 or a.amato@rcvs.org.uk).
All nominations must be made in writing on the prescribed form and received by the Registrar on or before the closing date of 31 January 2010.
Following a two-year postponed judgment, the Disciplinary Committee (DC) of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons last week warned a Cambridgeshire veterinary surgeon as to his future conduct, after he had been convicted in 2006 for causing death by careless driving whilst under the influence of alcohol.
In September 2007, the Committee heard that Peter Hanlon MRCVS, of Soham in Cambridgeshire, had been involved in a road traffic accident in February 2006. Mr Hanlon's car had drifted across the road and collided with an oncoming car driven by James Barber who was accompanied by his wife, Ivy. Mr Barber was pronounced dead at the scene and both Mrs Barber and Mr Hanlon sustained injuries.
At the initial hearing, Mr Hanlon admitted the conviction (for which he had been sentenced to 30 months in prison and received a four-year driving ban) and the charge that it rendered him unfit to practise veterinary surgery. The Committee decided to postpone its judgment for two years on the agreement that Mr Hanlon would undertake to abstain from alcohol and to submit quarterly medical reports and six-monthly CPD (continuing professional development) reports to the Committee chairman.
At the resumed hearing last week, the Committee carefully considered Mr Hanlon's written and oral submissions, and accepted that he had fully complied with these undertakings. He had abstained from alcohol since the day after the accident, produced an "exemplary" CPD record and provided impressive reports from his employers concerning his professional competence.
In addition, Mr Hanlon, who spent around 14 months in prison and remained on licence until July 2009, also reiterated to the Committee his remorse for the death of Mr Barber and respect for his family.
The Committee was mindful of its duty to maintain confidence in the veterinary profession and uphold proper standards of conduct. Whilst it did not consider it necessary to postpone judgment again, it felt that Mr Hanlon should be warned about his future conduct.
Caroline Freedman, chairing the Committee, concluded: "As this case has demonstrated, and as Mr Hanlon himself has fully recognised, abuse of alcohol can lead to far reaching consequences in personal and professional lives and the lives of others."
The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has suspended a veterinary surgeon for a period of three months for practising veterinary surgery while not registered with the College.
At a hearing which concluded on 9 September, Silke Birgitt Lindridge, of the Consett Veterinary Centre, Medomsley Road, Consett, County Durham, was found guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect for practising when she ought to have known that her name had been removed from the RCVS Register for non-payment of fees.
The Committee heard that Mrs Lindridge, who qualified as a veterinary surgeon at the University of Berlin in 1997, had returned to Germany whilst on maternity leave in September 2006 but had continued to be the sole principal of two practices, the Consett Veterinary Centre, and the Winlaton Veterinary Centre in Tyne and Wear. She had continued to run the practices whilst in Germany, and had returned to the UK on several occasions during 2007, when she practised veterinary surgery on small animals and horses. She had not been registered with the College for the period between 5 June 2006 and 2 April 2008.
To practise veterinary surgery when unregistered is a criminal offence. However, after consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service, a decision was taken that it was not in the public interest to prosecute Mrs Lindridge and that the matter should be left with the RCVS Disciplinary Committee.
Mrs Lindridge claimed not to be aware that she was unregistered, stating that a fee notice and reminder, as well as a telephone call and correspondence from the College about her registration status, had not been brought to her attention by her practice administrators. The Committee accepted that she had not known, but decided that, as registration was a professional obligation, Mrs Lindridge should have known that her name had been removed from the Register, a charge that Mrs Lindridge accepted. The Committee felt that: "The failure of Mrs Lindridge to put in place proper systems for the administration of her practice, including the payment of her annual retention fee... was lamentable." The way in which the practice had paid its bills during her absence demonstrated an "utterly careless attitude to the administration of the practice".
Taking account of the fact that Mrs Lindridge had not knowingly practised while unregistered, and the positive support of her clients, the Committee decided that a three-month period of suspension from the Register was appropriate.
Beverley Cottrell, chairing the Committee, commented: "The Committee would like to make it clear that it is the personal responsibility of every practising veterinary surgeon to ensure that the annual retention fee is paid and that their names are on the Register. It is in the public interest that clients should be assured that the practitioner is a regulated person, who is capable of providing valid certificates."
She continued: "The record of Mrs Lindridge's practice during 2007 discloses that she was providing certificates for horses and small animals whilst she was unregistered. Those certificates are invalid. She was also prescribing prescription-only drugs when she was not entitled to do so. The Committee considers that a short period of suspension is proportionate to the nature and the extent of the charge, the public interest and the interests of Mrs Lindridge."
Figures produced by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons show that almost half of the first cohort of newly-qualified vets to sign up to the Professional Development Phase (PDP) have now completed it.
The PDP is a web-based database that enables new graduates to develop, and reflect on, their professional skills during their first year in clinical practice. Completing the PDP became a professional obligation for all newly-qualified vets from 2007 onwards. Of the 636 vets who graduated in 2007, 586 (92%) signed up to PDP and 290 have now completed. Of the 616 vets who graduated in 2008, 546 (88%) have so far registered for the PDP.
Freda Andrews, RCVS Head of Education, said: "Undertaking PDP is a professional requirement for every newly-qualified vet working in clinical practice. The first vets to undertake PDP seem to be taking around 15 months from signing up to signing off. Properly completing PDP counts as the first year's CPD and we strongly recommend that this year's graduates sign up as soon as they have found their first clinical role."
The PDP is also open to any vet returning to practice.
To find out more about PDP requirements, log onto www.rcvs.org.uk/pdp, to enrol, email pdp@rcvs.org.uk.