Wirral practitioner Nigel Charles Hough MRCVS has been reprimanded by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for failing to communicate adequately with clients in relation to the care of their dog and for speaking disparagingly about other veterinary practitioners.

The Disciplinary Committee made its decision last Friday, following an adjournment of the case, which was initially heard in May of this year.

There were three heads of charge against Mr Hough:

1. That between 6 May 2014 and 23 May 2014 he failed to provide appropriate and adequate care to Mya, a Staffordshire Bull Terrier in relation to two separate clinical procedures, in that:
   
   In relation to the first procedure, which took place on 7 May 2014, his operation to remove a primary mass from Mya’s right back leg was not clinically justified whilst he was aware that there were other small masses on the same thigh; and he failed to provide or ensure adequate overnight post-operative care to Mya following that procedure.
   
   In relation to the second procedure, which took place on 21 May 2014, the charges were that his approach to wound management and healing was inappropriate; he failed to provide adequate peri-operative care; and he discharged the dog on 22 May without taking adequate steps to ensure she was fit to be discharged.
   
   
2. That between 6 and 22 May 2014 he failed to communicate adequately with Mya’s owners, including failing to discuss a range of realistic treatment options, failing to provide adequate information as to Mya’s post-operative condition, failing to provide the owners with information on providing post-operative care and failing to provide them with details of out-of-hours cover.
   
   
3. On 1 June 2014, during a conversation with the owners, Mr Hough made a number of disparaging comments about other veterinary practitioners and practices.

The Committee found the majority of the first head of charge not proven, with the exception of the charges that Mr Hough failed to provide and ensure adequate overnight care for Mya and that it was inappropriate and unreasonable for him to plan for the wound management to be undertaken by Mya’s owners following the second procedure on 21 May 2014.

Regarding the second head of charge, the Committee found it proven that Mr Hough did fail to provide information about post-operative care and out-of-hours cover details to Mya’s owners. However it found Mr Hough’s failure to communicate with the owners regarding treatment options and to provide them with adequate information as to Mya’s post-operative condition not proven.

The third head of charge in its entirety was admitted and found proven.

The Committee also found that those charges that were found proven amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect with the exception of Mr Hough’s failure to provide and/or ensure adequate overnight care and his failure to failure to provide out-of-hours details to Mya’s owners. 

In deciding on an appropriate sanction, the Committee expressed significant concerns over Mr Hough’s treatment of Mya, in particular his "failure to devise and implement proper and sufficient procedures to ensure that this dog was not released to owners unless it was safe for her to be released and... that the owners were fully advised as to what was required of them."

The Committee felt that Mr Hough had given "insufficient attention" to Mya’s post-operative care but did accept that the conduct represented a single incident. During the course of the hearing the Committee also heard mitigating evidence given on behalf of Mr Hough, with a number of written testimonials as well as witness evidence in support of his clinical expertise and surgical skills.

The Committee accepted that Mr Hough had taken to heart the lessons to be learnt from the charges against him and had implemented a number of written protocols to prevent recurrence of the shortcomings in his treatment of Mya. Furthermore, the Committee also found that Mr Hough had demonstrated insight into the conduct found against him and that he had apologised for the disparaging remarks he made about other veterinary practitioners.

Alistair Barr, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "In short, the Committee is persuaded that Mr Hough has made a good start in putting in place systems to ensure that the interests and welfare of the animals treated at his practice surgeries are not discharged from care until they are fully ready to be discharged and that the owners of such animals will, in future, be fully informed of what might be asked and required of them when their animals are returned into their care after surgery."

He added: "There are no other areas of [Mr Hough’s] professional practices which appear to the Committee to call for improvements. Accordingly, the Committee is persuaded on this evidence that there is reason to believe that the lessons which Mr Hough needed to learn have been learnt and concludes, therefore, that the sanction of a formal and solemn reprimand adequately meets the needs of the public interest in, and requirements of, this particular case. Mya did make a full recovery from her extensive surgery but she and her owners deserved better post-surgery advice and support."

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