The new changes are being introduced in the following phases:
The new Environmental Sustainability Award allows practices to demonstrate that they have embedded environmentally sustainable behaviours and are excelling with their sustainability goals.
The Award includes points for reducing waste, consolidating medicines orders and minimising drug wastage, and calculating the practice’s carbon footprint and setting reduction targets.
The changes and additions to the standards at Core Standards and General Practice level cover the sustainability of a wide range of practice areas, including requiring a sustainability policy, communicating sustainability achievements, and minimising anaesthetic gas usage.
As well as improving environmental sustainability, the new and amended standards also include requirements to help make practices more socially sustainable, through measures including increasing diversity and inclusion.
The PSS has produced a list of resources to support veterinary practices with meeting the new environmental sustainability standards and implementing sustainable practices in general.
Mandisa Greene, Chair of the Practice Standards Group, said: “We want to assure PSS-accredited practices that the new standards won’t mean an overhaul of ways of working or result in expensive investment in resources.
"Instead, the standards explain ways that practices can increase their sustainability by putting in place new measures gradually over the next 12 months, in time for them becoming mandatory.
"As with all standards updates, the PSS team are always available to answer any questions that practices have and anyone who is unsure about how to apply them is encouraged to get in touch with the PSS team.”
During the last Standards Committee meeting, there were also several approved clarifications to the standards in the form of guidance notes and minor changes across a range of accreditation levels.
These include updates to the guidance notes for requirements on sterilisation of dental instruments, environmental swabbing of clinical areas, and anaesthetic monitoring.
The new version of the standards that includes all the latest changes, and a separate document listing all the updates, are available to download here: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/practice-standards-scheme/additional-resources
Any questions from practices about the updates can be sent to the PSS team at pss@rcvs.org.uk
Alexander McKinstry and Andrew Rutherford were both charged with writing letters indicating that Rebecca Inman had undertaken an assessment when in fact they had done the assessments themselves, the former without Ms Inman's knowledge, the latter with.
The charges were that all three, who worked at the same practice group in North-West, had been dishonest, misleading and risked undermining procedures designed to promote animal welfare.
At the outset of the hearing, all three admitted the charges against them and the Committee found serious professional misconduct in the case of all admitted charges.
The Committee then considered the sanctions for all three of the respondents.
In the cases against Mr McKinstry and Mr Rutherford, the Committee considered that the conduct was premeditated, that they had an increased position of trust and responsibility as practice directors at the time of the misconduct and that it was a breach of trust for the farm clients.
Additionally, Mr McKinstry had put Dr Inman’s professional reputation in jeopardy by not informing her of his conduct.
In mitigation, the Committee considered that there was no harm or risk of harm to animals, the conduct was not done for personal financial gain, that both had been open and frank in their dealings with the RCVS and had shown insight into their behaviour, and their previous good character and unblemished careers.
Regarding Dr Inman, the aggravating factors were the abuse of her position of trust as a registered mobility scorer and the breach of trust with the farm clients.
In mitigation the Committee considered that it had been an isolated incident involving, from Dr Inman’s point of view, a single telephone call.
It also considered that there was no risk of harm, no personal financial gain, her open and frank admissions in dealings with the RCVS, demonstration of insight, previously unblemished record, and efforts to avoid repeats and remediate past misconduct.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee carefully weighed the demands of the public interest, as well as the previously stated mitigating and aggravating factors and all the particular circumstances before it.
"The Committee concluded that a period of suspension was sufficient and proportionate in this case to meet the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards.
"It had a sufficient deterrent effect upon others in the profession and was sufficient to mark that the disgraceful conduct was unacceptable.
“The Committee considered all of the factors before it, and decided that given the personal mitigation in this case, as set out above, a period of one month was appropriate and proportionate in all the circumstances."
The full findings of the Disciplinary Committee regarding this case can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The new guidance replaces Chapter 25 of the Supporting Guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct.
Routine Veterinary Practice describes the procedures and techniques performed on animals by veterinary surgeons (or veterinary nurses under their direction) in the course of their professional duties, which ensure the health and welfare of animals committed to their care.
CVR is when routine procedures are undertaken for the benefit of the animal/s, with the concurrent intention to generate new knowledge that benefits animals, such as developing new procedures, improving a diagnosis, changing a routine procedure, or comparing existing procedures.
While the idea of CVR is not new, this is the first time that the RCVS has provided specific guidance on it.
The guidance also introduces an obligation, which comes into effect on 1st September, to obtain ethics review for all studies where one would be expected to obtain permission from the owner/keeper of an animal prior to being enrolled, or when consent is needed for use of previously collected samples or the use of data from an animal.
The newly drafted Chapter 25 gives extra guidance on the following areas:
Chair of the Standards Committee and incoming RCVS President, Dr Melissa Donald (pictured right), said: “We hope that the guidance will inspire confidence in our veterinary colleagues at all levels to undertake treatment routes which develop veterinary knowledge as a whole, while still being for the benefit of the animal being treated.”
For further information or advice on whether a proposed procedure would be covered by the guidance, contact the Standards and Advice team via advice@rcvs.org.uk.
The new guidance will be found on the RCVS website from the 1st July: www.rcvs.org.uk/recognised
For further information in relation to ethics review of proposed veterinary clinical research studies, contact the Secretary to the RCVS Ethics Review Panel via ethics@rcvs.org.uk or visit www.rcvs.org.uk/ethics
Although developed by the RCVS and VSC BAME Student Support Working Group ostensibly for use by Universities, EMS placement host practices and other educational establishments, it is recommended that all veterinary practices review the guidance.
The Guidance on Religious Clothing and Beliefs covers issues such as: balancing accommodations for religious dress with clinical considerations, and making accommodations for religious observance in academic timetabling and exams.
Gurpreet Gill, RCVS Leadership and Inclusion Manager said: “This document is about recognising that personal religious beliefs should be respected and accommodated as far as possible, while also not compromising professional responsibilities such as infection control, effective communication and the health and safety of individuals and their colleagues.
"Most importantly, it is about creating a welcoming and inclusive environment and ensuring that all students are able to express their religious identity whilst participating in educational and workplace settings.
“Although the guidance is not exhaustive, we would highly recommend that, where relevant, educators, practices and other veterinary workplaces review, adopt and adapt this guidance for their own settings to ensure that all members of the professions are welcomed and included.”
The Guidance on Religious Clothing is available to download from: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/publications/guidance-on-religious-clothing-and-beliefs/
The report is the culmination of the work of a joint RCVS and VSC BAME Student Support Working Group, set up to explore key issues in supporting BAME veterinary students during their studies.
The Working Group made a total of 14 recommendations, which included:
Stephanie-Rae Flicker is a recent Royal Veterinary College (RVC) graduate who co-chaired the Working Group alongside Professor Rob Pettitt from the University of Liverpool.
She said: “I hope this encourages and supports our veterinary institutions to actively implement change regarding discrimination faced during studies and placements, nurturing role models and helping affected students develop sense of belonging and community during their studies and beyond.
"Many thanks to all that have contributed to the completion of this Report – we hope the recommendations have a lasting impact, and benefit those both already present and yet to enter our profession."
RCVS/VSC BAME Student Support Working Group Report.
Called the RCVS Academy, the new platform offers training in the following areas:
The College says the content has been developed in partnership with members of the profession to make sure it meets the needs of the veterinary team, including new graduates and registrants, and those who have been in the profession for many years.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS Chief Executive, said: “As part of our ambition to be a compassionate regulator, we would like to ensure that all veterinary professionals have access to learning resources that will help them meet the standards set by their peers on RCVS Council.
"We’re aware of the pressures that veterinary professions are facing and the Academy has been built to respond to changing learning needs.
“The learning resources available on the platform have been designed to help vet teams develop their understanding of the RCVS professional guidelines and also how they can apply them in their everyday role. "
https://academy.rcvs.org.uk/
In his first year of what would normally have been be a four-year term, Colin served on the College’s Education Committee, PIC/DC Liaison Committee, and on the Advancement of the Professions Committee as Council Deputy Lead for the ViVet innovation programme.
VetSurgeon.org caught up with Colin, who explained: "I've never had any problem with the idea of respecting Council decisions, even those I disagree with.
"However, I questioned the interpretation of collective responsibility when I first joined Council, and was told that in the event of disagreement, it was OK for councillors to say publicly that there was a 'split vote', or 'opinions varied'.
"This new statement would mean that if I disagree with a Council decision, I would now either have to lie in public and say I supported it, or run away and hide.
There were two other aspects of the new statement which Colin was not prepared to sign up to.
The first was a new requirement that councillors "support the College’s vision".
Colin said: "People who actively disagree with the College's vision should be free to stand to join Council, and if the profession disagrees with the College's vision, they'll get elected!"
The second was a requirement for councillors to "Live the College’s values"
Colin said: "Although perhaps inline with a corporate ethos, I think it represents quite a conflict.
"The values someone lives by are a deeply personal matter, and shouldn't be imposed by the majority vote of a committee they happen to sit on - however much they may or may not be likely to align."
Colin's resignation prompted VetSurgeon.org to carry out a quick analysis of the percentage of RCVS Council meeting agenda items marked as 'Confidential' from November 2015 to June 2022, to see whether the requirement to tow the party line reflected a broader lack of transparency at the College.
In the four Council meetings from November 2015-2016, 12% of the agenda items in the Council minutes were marked 'Confidential'.
By 2022, that figure had more than doubled to 36% (see graph right).
The new RCVS 'How we work' statement can be read in full in Annex One of the June 2022 Council Papers.
Mr Doherty was convicted, with others (who were also convicted), in a conspiracy to deceive members of the public by passing off puppies that had been bred in puppy farms as being the home-bred offspring of domestic pets living in family homes.
Mr Doherty’s role was that he provided vaccinations and vaccination/health check cards which, the court found, materially contributed to the impression that the puppies had been home-bred locally and were in good health.
Mr Doherty was initially convicted of this offence, resulting in eight months’ imprisonment in April 2018.
However, he subsequently appealed the conviction, which was quashed and resulted in a retrial.
On retrial, Mr Doherty was convicted and sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 18 months, 150 hours community service and a £100 victim surcharge.
When deciding on the sanction, the Disciplinary Committee considered that a period of suspension would be sufficient to meet the public interest.
In reaching this conclusion, the Committee took into account that Mr Doherty had, as part of his original conviction, already served eight months in prison before the original conviction was quashed and replaced, on retrial, with a suspended sentence.
He had therefore already, in effect, had a period of suspension from practice, which meant that the deterrent factor in a sanction of suspension had been partially met.
In reaching its decision, the Committee also took into account the circumstances of this case and, in particular, the view of the court that Mr Doherty had been motivated solely by animal welfare concerns and not financial gain, and that it was this overriding concern that had allowed others to exploit his willingness to continue to vaccinate puppies despite their source.
There were no concerns as to Mr Doherty’s skill or dedication as a veterinary surgeon and with regard to the single issue of the appropriate vaccination of puppies and their onward sale, the Committee noted the changes that Mr Doherty had made to his practice procedures to avoid any similar problems occurring in the future.
The full decision and findings from the hearing can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
As part of the programme, the College aims to form a network of UK-wide rural Mental Health First Aiders in the vet profession starting with rural geographies.
The network will bolster the understanding of common mental health conditions, help individuals identify signs of mental ill-health both in themselves and others, promote self-care and provide the tools for how to effectively support people experiencing poor mental health.
Angharad Belcher, Director of the RCVS Mind Matters Initiative (MMI), said: “Veterinary surgeons working in rural and ambulatory services are often integral members of their local communities with a deep connection with farmers, animal owners and the wider rural community.
"However, as MMI-funded research conducted by Scotland’s Rural College with vets has demonstrated, veterinary work in such areas can often be very challenging which is compounded by working alone or having relatively limited contact with professional colleagues.
“Effective early intervention in cases of mental ill-health and distress can have significant impacts, and so this course will arm participants with the relevant knowledge of how to identify mental health issues and will allow them to signpost people to the most effective and relevant sources of help.”
The free training, fully funded by MMI, will be delivered online in four sessions which are each two-and-a-half hours long.
The dates of the training sessions are Monday 11th, Tuesday 12th, Wednesday 20th and Thursday 21st July.
To register for the course, visit: www.vetmindmatters.org/training/
The closing date for registrations is 5pm Friday 10th June.
For those who are unsure about joining the course, MHFA England has organised an online question and answers session ahead of the application date at 7pm on Tuesday 7 June.
To attend the Q & A contact Lacey Pitcher, Mind Matters Outreach and Engagement Senior Officer on l.pitcher@rcvs.org.uk.
Mr Roger faced three charges: that he had failed to provide adequate care, failed to communicate with the owner adequately and failed to keep adequate clinical records for Honey, a Shiih Tzu dog who, it transpired, had hypergycaemia.
At the initial consultation, Mr Roger took a blood sample which showed that there was an elevated blood glucose, an elevated white blood cell count, an elevated ALT and an elevated ALP (which Mr Roger took to be indicative of liver damage secondary to infection).
Mr Roger prescribed a cholagogue (ursodeoxycholic acid), an antibiotic (Synulox) and a diuretic (Frusemide).
In its findings of fact, the Committee found it likely that Mr Roger would have realised that Honey had a potential diabetes mellitus diagnosis with an elevated blood glucose of 28.
However, Mr Roger explained that he had believed the elevated blood glucose was due to the stress Honey had undergone in taking the blood samples.
The Committee therefore accepted that Mr Roger’s actions did not indicate a complete failure by him to notice the elevated blood glucose because he had explained he believed at the time it was due to stress.
Honey’s owner took her back to the veterinary practice that Mr Roger worked at three days later.
A different veterinary surgeon examined Honey and flagged that her blood sugar was high and that her liver was damaged.
She was taken to an alternative veterinary practice for follow-up but died later that day.
Mr Roger admitted failing to ask Honey’s owner if there was a history of diabetes mellitus, failing to take repeat blood glucose tests or carry out urine analysis or carry out additional blood tests, failing to communicate adequately with Honey’s owner about the significance of the hyperglycaemia and the options for investigation/management and failing to keep adequate clinical records in regard to Honey’s blood glucose levels.
The Committee found the admitted facts proved.
The evidence presented to the Committee included the clinical notes taken during Honey’s consultations, emails sent from Honey’s owner to the RCVS outlining the complaint, and evidence from experts in small animal veterinary practice.
Although the Committee found some matters not proved, it did find proved that Mr Roger had failed to recognise and/or pay adequate regard to Honey’s elevated blood glucose levels, had failed to manage Honey’s hyperglycaemia either by treating it or by documenting an appropriate plan to do so and had failed to communicate adequately with Honey’s owner about the significance of her elevated glucose and the reason for it.
Having reached its decision in relation to the facts, the Committee went on to consider whether the facts it had found proved either individually or cumulatively amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Judith Way, Chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf said: “The Committee found that the charges and particulars it had found proved did not amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect either individually or cumulatively.
"In its judgment, the conduct found proved fell short of the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon but not far short of the standard which is expected of the reasonably competent veterinary surgeon.”
As a result of the Committee finding that Mr Roger was not guilty of serious professional misconduct on any of the proven charges, either individually or in any combination, the hearing did not proceed further.
This year, 13 veterinary surgeons stood for three available places on Council.
6,583 veterinary surgeons voted, a turnout of 18.6% which was significantly down on previous years (24.5% in 2021, 26.2% in 2020 and 25.5% in 2019).
Sue Paterson led the field with 2,358 votes, Olivia Cook came in second with 1,994 votes and Abbie Calow was close behind with 1,820 votes.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for both elections, said: “Many congratulations to all successful candidates, who we look forward to welcoming on to RCVS and VN Councils in July.
"Thank you once again this year to everyone who made the decision to stand in this year’s elections and to those who took the time to vote for their preferred candidates.
"We’re not exactly sure why both elections saw falling turnouts this year, but we do appreciate how extremely busy the professions are at the moment, and that everyone’s time is at a premium.
"As part of our ‘Council culture’ project we are looking at ways of improving all aspects of communicating the work around RCVS Council, VN Council and their committees, including around standing for and voting in elections.”
The full results for the RCVS Council election can be found on the 2022 election page.
Dr Mostert admitted to his conviction but denied that it rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
He also admitted not disclosing his conviction to the RCVS but denied that it amounted to dishonesty or was misleading and that failing to do so amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The Committee first considered whether Dr Mostert’s conviction affected the public interest, which included the need to maintain public confidence in the profession by upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour for members of the profession.
The Committee noted that the conviction involved dishonesty relating to false statements about the value of goods sent to the USA.
The Committee felt that a conviction for a serious offence involving dishonesty would have a negative impact on public confidence in the profession, and that its reputation would be damaged if proper standards of conduct and behaviour were not upheld.
The Committee also noted that as the products that Dr Mostert imported into the USA were not labelled as coming from a foreign market and were not labelled as needing to be administered by a vet, his conviction also related to animal safety, as anyone who accessed the medications could believe that it was safe for them to be given to an animal.
The Committee then considered Dr Mostert’s failure to declare the conviction to the College on three separate occasions.
Dr Mostert testified that, at the time, he did not believe he had to disclose his conviction as it occurred in a country where he had not practised as a veterinary surgeon.
He also said he had not taken the time to read and interpret the application form accurately.
However, the Committee considered that the wording around convictions on the application and annual renewal forms is very clear and that, as a veterinary surgeon, Dr Mostert would be familiar with such documents.
The Committee considered that it was inconceivable that an experienced veterinary surgeon, making a declaration of this kind to his regulator, would not have understood that a serious conviction in the USA, dating from June 2017, was a conviction that he was obliged to disclose.
The Committee therefore found Dr Mostert’s failures to declare his conviction dishonest.
Judith Way, Chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, noted that in deciding upon the appropriate sanction, the case did not involve any actual harm to an animal or human and that Dr Mostert had had a long and otherwise unblemished career.
However, a key aggravating factor was that the action that led to the conviction resulted in financial gain through the creation of a business enterprise and that Dr Mostert falsely declared the value of goods.
The extent of any financial gain was not known to the Committee, but the business operated on the basis that false declarations were repeatedly made.
Judith said: “After careful consideration the Committee has concluded that in all the circumstances, a lengthy period of suspension would properly reflect the gravity of the case and satisfy the public interest. The Committee has decided that the appropriate length of suspension is one of 18 months.”
The Committee’s full findings can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The courses are:
MMI Manager Lisa Quigley commented: “I am really proud of this new tranche of training.
"Whereas our previous training has focused on the individual experience, for example, mental health awareness and resilience, these new courses recognise that individual instances of poor mental health and wellbeing can often be caused by systemic issues – whether that’s a poor workplace culture where bullying and incivility thrive, or discrimination on account of someone’s protected characteristics.
The full range of courses, including the dates and times and details on how to register, can be found at www.vetmindmatters.org/training
Feedback about any of the courses can be sent to info@vetmindmatters.org
Neurodiversity Celebration Week is a worldwide initiative that challenges stereotypes and misconceptions about neurological differences, and the neurodiversity resource hub (www.vetmindmatters.org/resources/) aims to help members of the veterinary professions better understand how, for over one million people in the UK, neurological differences mean they learn and think in a way that is different to what is considered ‘neurotypical’.
Among the resources contained in the hub is information about neurological conditions closely associated with neurodivergence such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, dyspraxia and dyslexia, as well as information for employers about neurodiversity, including inclusive working tools and sources of government support.
A new ‘kite’ with six new modules are also being added to the MMI Kite App – a specialist microlearning platform for topics related to veterinary wellbeing – that deal specifically with issues related to neurodiversity. The six modules cover: what is neurodiversity; the importance of talking about neurodiversity; different types of neurodiversity; bespoke considerations for neurodivergent individuals; how neurodivergence can lead to innovation through thinking differently; and, exploring further how different brains work and how we can make our brains work best for us.
The College is also publishing a blog on the resource website by Dr Kirstie Pickles, Clinical Assistant Professor in Equine Medicine at the University of Nottingham, about her current MMI-funded research investigating the various workplace stressors that affect autistic veterinary professionals and what adjustments can be introduced to mitigate these stressors.
Lastly, at BSAVA Congress on Saturday 26 March between 3pm and 4pm, the RCVS has organised a discussion session on neurodiversity.
The discussion will be led by Roxanne Hobbs, a consultant in workplace inclusion particularly around neurodiversity, and will look at how to nurture and cultivate neurodiversity in the veterinary professions.
Lisa Quigley, Mind Matters Manager, said: “As a project focused on the mental health and wellbeing of veterinary professionals, the Mind Matters project has a commitment to recognising and providing a space for all forms of diversity, and so we are very glad to be supporting Neurodiversity Celebration Week again this year.
“We hope that our neurodiversity resource hub and our other initiatives during Neurodiversity Celebration Week will be useful source of information for everyone and will aid people in understanding neurodivergence, how it can manifest and how it can be supported in the workplace and educational settings.”
The Disciplinary Committee heard that the offence took place in 2013, when Dr Surdila was not a registered veterinary surgeon.
However she pleaded guilty to the charge in 2019, by which time she was.
Dr Surdila testified that in 2010, she and her family owned a few beehives and applied for EU funding to help expand their operation into a business.
A requirement of the funding was that Dr Surdila and her sister belong to a licensed bee-keeping co-operative.
They joined their local co-operative, and paid a consultant to manage their funding application.
Three years later, their consultant switched Dr Surdila and her sister to a different cooperative, for reasons they did not understand.
After another three years or so, Dr Surdila's family decided to close the business because she was at university and the others had other commitments.
Dr Surdila later moved to the UK and joined a practice in Motherwell, Scotland.
Then, in 2019, when Dr Surdila had been in the UK for four years, it transpired that the second co-operative they had joined was unlicensed and they had therefore not been entitled to received the funds from the EU (which amounted to a few thousand euros), and would be prosecuted by the National Department of Anti-Corruption.
Meanwhile, the consultant they had paid to manage their funding application had died.
Dr Surdila stated that everything she had signed for the unlicensed co-op had been signed in good faith, but she was advised by her lawyer that as she had signed legally binding documents for the funding, and because the consultant had died, her only option was to plead guilty.
She was sentenced to two years imprisonment, suspended for two years, 60 days of community service and was required to pay 19,544.7 Romanian Lei (approximately £3,300) in damages.
Her lawyer advised her to appeal her sentence which was harsh considering the circumstances.
However, the appeal was postponed several times because of Covid-19 and was ultimately unsuccessful.
In concluding whether the conviction rendered Dr Surdila unfit to practise, Mrs Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Dr Surdila’s conviction was of a nature and seriousness that required a finding that she was unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon on public interest grounds”.
The Committee then turned to sanction and in reaching its decision, Mrs Way said: “This was a serious conviction with a significant sentence, involving an element of bad faith.
"The Committee considered it important to mark this behaviour in some way because Dr Surdila should have been more cognisant of what she was signing.
“The Committee noted that her offending behaviour took place a significantly long time ago, when Dr Surdila was young and inexperienced and before she had qualified as a veterinary surgeon.
"There had never been a risk to animals or the public, she had demonstrated significant insight into her failures and exhibited genuine remorse.
"The Committee was satisfied that it was highly unlikely she would ever commit such an offence again.
“In light of the lack of aggravating factors and the extensive mitigation in this case, the Committee concluded that it was appropriate and proportionate to reprimand Dr Surdila and to warn her of the need to ensure she reads and understands all documents that require her signature.”
The aim of the Working Party is to compare options, such as limited licensure, for increasing inclusion, source evidence both from the UK and other countries, and to identify any potential unintended consequences of change.
The College says that it is inviting representatives from the Association of Veterinary Students (AVS), British Veterinary Association (BVA), British Veterinary Chronic Illness Support (BVCIS), the British Veterinary Nurses Association (BVNA) and Veterinary Schools Council (VSC) to join the Working Party.
Sue Paterson will be Chairing the Working Party.
She said: “The formation of this new Working Party is a significant and very welcome step in helping to make the veterinary professions more accessible for people with a disability.
"Fellow members of the Working Party include a broad range of colleagues, students and veterinary bodies, to ensure we take into account as many perspectives as possible when we propose recommendations.
"We recognise that many organisations have already begun to explore what we could do to make the veterinary professions more accessible, and we are keen to work collaboratively with them to ensure we keep up the momentum on this vital work.
"The Working Party will endeavour to find a way that those wishing to undertake a veterinary degree or a veterinary nursing qualification in the UK are not faced with barriers due to disability."
For more information, contact Rosie Greaves, Policy and Public Affairs Officer: r.greaves@rcvs.org.uk
Ms Hill and Wilfred Wong snatched the child from their foster carer when they arrived home from school on Anglesey.
Hill wrestled the child from the car and put them in a waiting vehicle while Wong held a knife to the foster carer’s throat before slashing one of the carer’s car tyres to stop them following.
Having made their escape, they then transferred the child into the hands of two other conspirators who had hired a car to take the child abroad.
The child was rescued four hours later when the hire car was stopped by police on the M1 in Northamptonshire.
A police investigation later concluded that the child had not been the victim of any abuse.
Ms Hill was sentenced at Caernarfon Crown Court to 19 years, 5 months, with a custodial term of 14 years and five months.
Ms Hill did not attend the RCVS disciplinary hearing as she was serving her prison sentence, and she was not represented.
In relation to the charges, the Committee was presented with the sentencing remarks from Ms Hill’s conviction at Mold Crown Court.
The judge said that Ms Hill had led the conspiracy to kidnap, and that it had caused the victim and the people responsible for their care “unspeakable misery and considerable harm”.
The judge also said that Ms Hill posed a significant risk of causing serious harm in the future.
Dr Hazel Bentall, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee took into account a number of aggravating features when considering the sanctions.
"In particular, the Committee considered that the conviction arose as a result of careful planning over several months and involved the use of violence.
"The Committee concluded that there were no mitigating factors apart from that Dr Hill had no previous regulatory history and that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was that Dr Hill’s removal from the Register of veterinary surgeons be maintained.”
Dr Hill has 28 days from being notified of her removal from the Register to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.
The Veterinary Workforce Summit was held last November, when 80 stakeholders from independent and corporate practices, veterinary schools, charities, government, the food hygiene sector, species associations and industry bodies came together to look at how the profession could address the workforce crisis.
Prior to the Summit, preliminary research was carried out to assess the profession's views on the workforce crisis and how it was affecting them.
Based on findings from the preliminary research, six themes around the issue of workforce shortages were identified and used to structure the discussions of the day.
These were: readiness for work; work-life balance; workplace culture; client interactions; career development; and return to work.
The day was opened by Lizzie Lockett, RCVS Chief Executive, who focused on the issues underpinning the workforce crisis:
Later in the day, delegates were divided into groups and asked to develop ideas and pitch a solution to a problem the sector is facing.
Some of the solutions that the professions might use to address the key workforce issues which came out of the pitches included:
Kate Richards, RCVS President, said: “Although the issues affecting the UK veterinary sector aren’t new, they have been exacerbated over the past few years by factors outside of the sector’s control.
"We know that putting in place solutions to address and solve the issues that the veterinary sector is facing will take time.
"We want to reiterate that the Summit was the first, albeit an incredibly important, first step in co-creating innovative solutions to workforce shortages.
"I look forward to working collaboratively with our veterinary colleagues from across the professions to bring the workforce action plan to life and work on the solutions that come out of it.”
The RCVS says the next steps from the Summit are to consider the feasibility of the suggested solutions and integrate those that seem likely to deliver effective results into an action plan, alongside other activities that are already underway.
The College says it is open to hearing additional ideas for the professions and encourages anyone who has suggestions to get in touch with Sophie Rogers, ViVet Manager, on s.rogers@rcvs.org.uk
The full Workforce Summit report can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/publications
The Committee heard that Mr Dingemanse had one conviction relating to four separate offences committed in 2019 of making indecent photographs of a child Category A, B and C and possession of 22 extreme pornographic images that were grossly offensive.
He had been sentenced at Oxford Crown Court to eight months’ imprisonment, suspended for 24 months, directed to sign the sex offenders register for 10 years and fined £420 for prosecution costs and £140 victim surcharge.
The Committee were presented with evidence taken from the transcripts of Dr Dingemanse’s Crown Court sentencing hearing.
The transcript outlined that Dr Dingemanse used an online messaging service to engage in conversations about child sexual abuse under a pseudonym. According to Wales Online, the conversations related to children as young as four.
His IP address was traced and he was arrested on suspicion of possessing indecent images of children.
Counsel for the College submitted to the Disciplinary Committee that the nature of circumstances of the offences rendered Dr Dingemanse unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
In its decision relating to Dr Dingemanse’s fitness to practise, the Committee described Dr Dingemanse’s behaviour which led to the conviction as “inexplicable” and “abhorrent”, and that his possession of the images of children and animals was “disgraceful conduct of the most grievous and reprehensible kind.”
The Committee did not consider that there were any mitigating factors in the case, but did consider there to be several aggravating factors including: actual (albeit indirect) injury to an animal or child; the risk of harm to an animal or child; lack of integrity for a regulated professional to have behaved in such a way; premeditated conduct; and, that the offences involved vulnerable children and animals.
Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, added: “Dr Dingemanse’s conduct was [also] liable to have a seriously detrimental effect on the reputation of the profession and to undermine public confidence in the profession.
"The fact that he was a veterinary surgeon was made clear at the Crown Court hearing.
"The Committee considered that members of the public would rightly be appalled that a registered veterinary surgeon had committed offences of this nature.”
When deciding on the appropriate sanction, the Committee took into account all of the evidence, including Dr Dingemanse’s expression of remorse and steps towards rehabilitation.
Mr Dingemanse's solicitor invited the Committee to consider suspending Dr Dingemanse from the Register as his client’s sanction, but the Committee did not feel that this was appropriate.
Cerys Jones added: “The Committee considered that suspending Dr Dingemanse’s registration would not be sufficient to maintain confidence in the profession and that therefore, for public interest reasons, as well as animal protection, a suspension would not be sufficient.
"Committee was of the view that the nature and seriousness of Dr Dingemanse’s behaviour, which led to the conviction, was fundamentally incompatible with being registered as a veterinary surgeon and that all of the above matters listed were applicable in this case.
"The Committee decided that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case was removal from the Register.”
Dr Dingemanse has 28 days from being notified of his removal from the Register to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.
The plenary speaker was Professor Rory O’Connor, Chair of Health Psychology at the University of Glasgow’s Institute of Health & Wellbeing whose talk: "When it is darkest: understanding suicide risk" opened the day with an outline of his 25 years of work looking into suicide prevention.
Rory discussed his recent investigation into the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on people’s mental health and wellbeing, and how to reduce the risk of suicidal ideation turning into suicidal action.
He said: “In the last 10 to 15 years there has been an increased focus in particular on psychological and psycho-social interventions for helping people who are suicidal.
"Although suicide is complex, interventions, even brief interventions, can be effective.”
Rory was followed by presentations from a number of teams, including those who'd been awarded the MMI’s Sarah Brown Mental Health Research Grant in 2019 and 2020:
The full report of the day’s talks can be found here https://www.vetmindmatters.org/resources/report-mind-matters-initiative-research-symposium-2021
Mrs Mullen faced four charges against her.
The first was that she failed to provide information to her clients about her practice OOH provision.
She was also charged with discharging a Labrador, called Cleo, that was unfit to be discharged following spay surgery, with an inadequate abdominal dressing and inadequate information given to the dog's owners regarding complications from surgery, the risk of post-operative haemorrhage and arrangements for out-of-hours care, as well as failing to make adequate clinical records.
The third charge alleged that she had failed to obtain informed consent for anaesthesia/ surgery performed on an English Bulldog, called Boycie, from his owners, failed to ensure the dog had adequate monitoring whilst recovering from anaesthesia, failed to offer an adequate range of overnight care for the dog, left the dog alone overnight when it was not in a fit condition to be left, failed to provide information to its owners on post-operative care at home and out-of-hours emergency arrangements, and failed to make adequate clinical records relating to its treatment.
Finally, she was charged with failing to have Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) or equivalent arrangements in place or failing to provide details of it, failing to respond to requests regarding her continuing professional development records and failing to respond adequately to reasonable requests from the College for details and documents regarding her treatment of the two dogs.
Mrs Mullen indicated to the RCVS before the hearing that she would not be engaging with the disciplinary process.
The Disciplinary Committee therefore granted the RCVS permission to proceed in her absence on the basis that Mrs Mullen had made it clear that her absence from proceedings was deliberate and voluntary, that there was no indication she would attend any future hearing if it was adjourned and that the charges were of sufficient seriousness that it was in the interests of animal welfare to proceed with them.
The Committee heard evidence from a number of witnesses including the animals’ owners, an expert veterinary witness and College staff.
In the evidence, the Committee heard that the Labrador had died while undergoing treatment at another veterinary practice from complications arising from blood loss following Mrs Mullen’s surgery.
The Committee also heard that the English Bulldog had suffered brain damage and had lost its sight due to post-operative hypoxia, although it had otherwise recovered.
Having heard all the evidence, the Committee found all the charges against Mrs Mullen proven.
The Committee then went on to consider whether the proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In doing so it considered the aggravating factors, including that there was actual injury to animals, that the misconduct was sustained and repeated over a period of time, that the conduct directly contravened advice issued by the RCVS, and the blatant disregard of the RCVS’s regulatory role.
It also considered that Mrs Mullen had previously been suspended from the Register by the Disciplinary Committee for two months in April 2017 for failing to have Professional Indemnity Insurance arrangements in place.
It considered that there were no mitigating factors in the case and accordingly found serious professional misconduct in relation to all the proven charges.
The Committee then considered what the most appropriate sanction would be.
Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Animal welfare lies at the heart of the veterinary profession.
"The Committee considers that [Mrs Mullen’s] treatment of Cleo and Boycie constitutes a breach of this fundamental tenet of the profession.
"Other serious findings of disgraceful conduct against [Mrs Mullen] are her failure to provide informed consent, failure to provide details about out-of-hours cover, failure to have in place Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII), continuing professional development (CPD), and failure to respond to the College’s request for information.”
The Committee considered that the conduct was so serious that the only means of protecting animal health and welfare and public confidence in the profession was to direct the Registrar to remove Mrs Mullen’s name from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons.
Judith added: “The Committee considers that [Mrs Mullen] has displayed a persistent lack of insight into the seriousness of her actions or their consequences.
"The Committee considers that [Mrs Mullen’s] conduct raises serious clinical concerns, shows disregard of obligations in relation to out-of-hours care, indicates deficiencies in making decisions, demonstrates an obstructive attitude to her regulator and creates a potential risk to patients.
"She has not engaged with the regulator, she has not demonstrated insight into her misconduct, has learned nothing from her previous suspension in relation to PII, and has done nothing to remediate her disgraceful conduct.
"There is no evidence that [Mrs Mullen} has complied with any of her obligations in relation to CPD."
“In the view of the Committee, if [Mrs Mullen] were permitted to remain on the Register, there would be a serious risk of harm to animals. She has demonstrated a reckless disregard for the obligations of a registered veterinary surgeon.”
Mrs Mullen has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.
Every year, the RCVS invites members of the veterinary profession to apply to join the RCVS Fellowship.
Becoming a member of the Fellowship is a recognition of an individual’s contribution to the professions and their commitment to advancing the scientific achievements of the veterinary sector.
Everyone that applies to join the Fellowship needs to demonstrate the impact they have had throughout their career on the veterinary professions.
The Fellowship Credentials Panel is responsible for reviewing and scoring Fellowship applications and making recommendations for who should be approved.
Angharad Belcher, Director for Advancement of the Professions, said: “Being part of our Fellowship Credentials Panel is a great opportunity to see the huge amount of dedication to the profession that prospective Fellows have shown throughout their careers, and to then celebrate their achievements when they are successfully welcomed to the Fellowship later in the year”.
To apply to join the Fellowship Credentials Panel, download and complete the application form (https://www.rcvs.org.uk/fellowship/credentials-panel-recruitment-2022/), then email it to Ceri Chick, Senior Leadership Officer at c.chick@rcvs.org.uk with a CV by 5pm on 28 February 2022.
The dispensation was originally introduced during the spring 2020 lockdown to safeguard animal health and welfare, the health and safety of the veterinary team, and public health, by allowing prescriptions to be made by veterinary surgeons without their having first physically examined the animal, subject to conditions and safeguards.
The RCVS says the Committee considered the ongoing challenges posed by Covid-19 and recognised that staff absences due to isolation requirements were still causing issues.
However, given the relaxation of the requirement to work from home in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland and relaxation of restrictions generally across the UK, the Committee felt it was time to end the dispensation.
Chair of the Standards Committee, Dr Melissa Donald MRCVS, said: “The safety and wellbeing of veterinary professionals, as well as the health and welfare of the animals they care for, have remained uppermost in our minds when considering this temporary position on remote prescribing.
“We are pleased to have been able to support the professions through a very difficult time by introducing this dispensation, however, it was only ever a temporary measure and, given the relaxation of restrictions across the UK, we feel the time has come to revert to our usual guidance.
“We will continue to keep the position under review in light of any changes, including governments’ advice and regulations, as we have throughout the pandemic.”
There are 13 candidates standing in this year’s election for RCVS Council, the voting period for which will open on the week commencing Monday 14 March and close at 5pm on Friday 22 April 2022.
The candidates are:
The full biographies and manifesto statements for each candidate are available to read at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote22.
To submit a question to the candidates, email: vetvote22@rcvs.org.uk or post it on the RCVS Twitter account (@theRCVS) using the hashtag #vetvote22.
Candidates will then be asked to record a short video of themselves answering two questions of their choice which will be published when the election starts.
You have until Monday 21 February 2022 to submit your question.
The new series comprises six online discussions taking place over the course of the spring, covering everything from diversity to creativity to identity.
The upcoming programme of events is as follows:
Tuesday 1st March 2022 7pm to 8pm: Celebrating diversityChaired by Gurpreet Gill, RCVS Leadership & Inclusion Manager. Panel members Lacey Pitcher RVN, Dr Olivia Anderson-Nathan MRCVS and Samantha Payne RVN will be talking about what celebrating diversity means to people, exploring how this links to mental health, and sharing their thoughts on why – and how – the professions should be working towards greater inclusivity, both in and out of the workplace.
Monday 21st March 2022 7pm to 8pm: The joy of creativityThis discussion will look at why creativity is so important for people’s lives and how it can be used to support mental health and wellbeing with a panel comprising Dr Silvia Janksa MRCVS and Olivia Oginska MRCVS.
Tuesday 5th April 2022 7pm to 8pm: Overcoming self-doubt and stressing outThis discussion will consider the main causes of stress in the veterinary workforce and how this may have shifted throughout the pandemic. The discussion will encompass coping strategies, the ways in which stress can be channelled in a more constructive way, and overcoming feelings of self-doubt.
Thursday 21st April 2022 7pm to 8pm: Identity – who am I away from work?This discussion will consider to what extent veterinary professionals should let their careers define them, the importance of understanding oneself in and out of a work setting, and how people can learn to value, accept, and appreciate their whole selves.
Tuesday 3rd May 2022 7pm to 8pm: Saying goodbye…letting go and learning to growThis discussion will consider how best to cope with the various types of loss that may be encountered in an individual’s professional and personal life, and how to learn, adapt and grow from these losses.
Thursday 12th May 2022 7pm to 8pm: Tackling loneliness in a hyperconnected worldThis Campfire Chat will discuss why meaningful connection and having a sense of belonging matters, and how individuals and communities can tackle loneliness in a hyperconnected world.
Angharad Belcher, Director of the Mind Matters Initiative, said: “We all lead busy professional and personal lives and sometimes it means that self-care, which includes talking to others about how we’re feeling and about issues that we find important to us, can fall by the wayside.
“Our Campfire Chats offer a perfect opportunity – and excuse – to take a bit of time out of your schedule to engage in a structured but informal discussion about all manner of subjects, expertly led by a chair and panel with experience, lived and otherwise, on the topic being talked about.
“These events are for the whole veterinary team, we keep the sessions very informal, and there is also the opportunity to share or ask questions of the panel.”
To sign up for the first session, visit https://bit.ly/3GnQK0G.
For further information about the events contact Abi Hanson, Mind Matters Initiative Officer, on a.hanson@rcvs.org.uk