The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded Rahul Shah, a Slough veterinary surgeon, for misconduct after finding him guilty on all three charges of failing to provide adequate care for a dog in his care.

During the four-day hearing, the Committee heard evidence in respect of three separate heads of charge brought against Mr Shah following a castration operation conducted on Shadow, a six-year old Newfoundland dog, which took place on 20 June 2014.

The three charges were as follows:

• That on 20 June 2014, Mr Shah discharged Shadow from his surgery into the care of his owner, Gemma Ballantyne, when Shadow was not in a fit state to be so discharged.
• That, having been alerted in a telephone call to concerns about Shadow’s condition later that evening after he had been brought home, Mr Shah failed to advise Gemma Ballantyne that Shadow should receive veterinary attention as a matter of urgency. Mr Shah accepted in his evidence that he did not give this advice to Gemma Ballantyne, and therefore the issue for the Committee was whether he should have done.
• That, during that telephone call, Mr Shah also failed to ensure that Gemma Ballantyne was fully informed as to out-of-hours care for Shadow.

There was no complaint made as to the undertaking of the operation itself, and the Committee followed the advice from the Legal Assessor that each charge should be considered separately. When making its decision, the Committee did not take into account the fact that Shadow had died as it is impossible to say whether he would have survived had Mr Shah acted differently.

The Committee found each of the allegations against Mr Shah proved. In respect of the first charge the Committee heard from two expert witnesses, Professor Williams and Mr Plumley, who agreed that the decision to discharge Shadow at about 6pm on 20 June 2014, given his condition, was inappropriate.

The Committee considers that discharging Shadow at that time into the care of the owner given his state on discharge, was grossly negligent and a serious error of judgement. It therefore found Mr Shah to be guilty of the first charge.

The Committee then considered that, after being alerted to Shadow’s continued lack of progress by the telephone call from Gemma Ballantyne between 30 and 45 minutes after discharge, Mr Shah exacerbated the situation by the inadequacy of his response in dealing with the concerns raised which, in the Committee’s view, represented a continuation of his previous poor judgement.

The Committee considered that Mr Shah was under a duty of care to advise Gemma Ballantyne to seek urgent veterinary attention for Shadow and by his own admission he failed to do so, and he was therefore found guilty of the second charge.

During that telephone call Mr Shah also gave no further details about the out-of-hours care available to Gemma Ballantyne other than to inform her that there would be an additional cost.

He did not seek confirmation that any such information been supplied by his colleague, Emma Martin (who at the relevant time was a student nurse), however, and at no time did he see Gemma Ballantyne in possession of the discharge sheet. The Committee therefore found Mr Shah guilty of this final head of charge.

The Committee did accept that there was no element of dishonesty, nor was there an aim of financial gain in the case. The Committee also considered that Mr Shah was acting in good faith at all times. It also accepted that Mr Shah was entitled to assume that normal practice had been followed and that a previously compiled discharge sheet, containing the number of the out-of-hours provider, had been supplied to Miss Ballantyne.

Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "Balancing all of the factors as the Committee must, it is clear that on this occasion Mr Shah’s conduct fell far short of that which is expected and it therefore finds he conducted himself disgracefully in a professional respect."

Mr Green added: "In imposing the sanction of a reprimand, the Committee urges Mr Shah in the strongest possible terms to ensure that his future conduct by way of training and support systems within his practice are such as to avoid any possibility of a future incident such as this occurring in order to ensure animal welfare and public confidence in the veterinary profession. The Committee notes that in her evidence, Emma Martin said that the working practices at the surgery have been changed and the Committee expects that all animals kept in the care of Mr Shah are fully monitored, examined and assessed in relation to their condition before being discharged."

PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vets.