It's just over a year since microchipping became compulsory for dogs and according to Defra, 95% of dogs are now chipped.
However, the PDSA PAW Report 2016 showed that only 20% of Britain's 11m cats live an indoor-only life, meaning that there are 9 million 'free-range' cats at risk of getting lost if they stray too far from home.
The PDSA report also found 91% of veterinary professionals in the UK believe microchipping should be compulsory for cats.
Bayer says that advice to dog owners this year should focus on the importance of keeping their chip registration details up to date, after a BVA survey found 44% of veterinary surgeons still cannot reunite missing or stray dogs with their owners due to incorrect chip information being stored on the databases.1
Hannah Watts, Product Manager at Bayer said: "Until microchipping becomes compulsory in cats, vets will need to play a crucial role in helping increase the number of UK cats that are microchipped. National Microchipping month provides a great opportunity for vets to raise the subject with owners and to take advantage of the increased awareness and interest in the subject throughout June. With so many dogs now microchipped, ensuring owners are aware of the need to update their details on the microchipping database is an equally important educational message for vets to convey."
Bayer says that during National Microchipping Month, it will be actively driving pet owners into veterinary practices across the country to discuss the benefits of microchipping with their veterinary surgeon. It will also be trying to ensure pet owners understand the importance of keeping the details stored on their pet’s microchip database up to date.
To help drive home the message, Bayer has also developed a range of new marketing and support materials for practices to display throughout June.
To order National Microchipping Month support materials, visit www.vetcentre.bayer.co.uk or speak to your Bayer Territory Manager.
Reference
The survey was carried out by the Institute for Employment Studies (IES), which sent it to 5,572 veterinary surgeons who graduated from a vet school in the EU (excluding the UK) and who are registered as veterinary surgeons in this country, as well as around 100 non-UK EU-trained veterinary nurses.
The survey asked a range of questions about how these individuals felt that the vote to leave the EU had affected them, how they felt about their future working in the UK veterinary sector and how they felt the College had dealt with the issue of Brexit.
3,078 people (including 19 veterinary nurses) responded to the survey – a response rate of 55.3%. The average age of the respondents was 36. 60% were female and 87% were working full-time.
The largest group of respondents (22%) qualified in Spain. 14% qualified in Italy, 10% in Poland, 9% in Romania, 7% in Portugal, 6% in Germany and 6% in the Republic of Ireland.
The remaining 26% qualified in 18 different countries, each of which accounted for fewer than 5% of EU registrants. Although these figures relate to country of qualification and not the nationality of the individuals, in 91% of cases these were the same.
The majority of respondents (78%) worked in clinical practice. Of the 603 who did not work in clinical practice, 38% worked for the Food Standards Agency, 21% worked for the Animal and Plant Health Agency and 18% worked in higher education.
The main findings of the survey were:
RCVS President Chris Tufnell said: "This survey makes the strongest possible case that the Government must act fast to reassure our EU colleagues in practices, universities and industry that they are welcome to stay in the UK.
"EU vets and vet nurses make a massive contribution to the UK veterinary sector and the health and welfare of animals and humans.
"Beyond this commitment we will also be lobbying the Government that, after we leave the EU, suitably qualified vets from overseas are prioritised for UK work visas or equivalent, particularly if they are working in public health and the meat industry.
"I have written to Michael Gove, the new Secretary of State for the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, outlining our position and our Brexit Principles and have invited him to visit the RCVS at Belgravia House to discuss these further. I hope that he accepts our offer so that we can have some constructive talks on these matters.
"On a personal note, I am very sorry to see that a significant proportion of respondents had experienced prejudice at work. This is simply not acceptable and we, as a regulator, have been conscious that ‘anti-foreigner’ rhetoric in the country at large could have an effect on hard-working and talented members of our profession, which is why we raised the matter in our letter to the Prime Minister last year."
The findings of interviews with a sample of non-UK EU-graduated veterinary surgeons working in the UK will be published over the summer. Meanwhile, over the next two years, IES will also be carrying out two further pieces of research that will track the opinions and intentions of non-UK EU-graduated veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses over time as Brexit policies are formed and the future status of non-UK nationals made clearer.
To read the IES report and the College’s three Brexit Principles in full, visit www.rcvs.org.uk/brexit
The Prince's Trust 'creates life-changing opportunities' for those aged 11-30 and Nick has long-held a passion for making a difference to young lives. He has set up three charities for young people: with learning disabilities; who want to campaign to change the world; and who want to break down the barriers to enjoying nature and the outdoors.
Nick has led the RCVS since September 2012. During his tenure, developments at the College include a new Royal Charter, major governance reform, improved regulation of veterinary nurses, the instigation of Vet Futures, the introduction of the alternative dispute resolution service, significant evolution within the Practice Standards Scheme, the refocusing of RCVS Trust into RCVS Knowledge, the launch of Mind Matters, and the recognition of the College as a Great Place to Work.
Nick said: "It has been a great privilege to be CEO of the College and to work with such amazing staff, such a progressive Council and such a decent and caring profession. It is no surprise to me that vets and vet nurses are among the most trusted professionals in this country, and in my view this is due to their professionalism and to the excellence of the Royal College in maintaining and advancing standards. I hope I have played my part in helping the College and the profession navigate through a period of great change and preparation for significant change to come.
"At The Prince’s Trust I will be focused on the next generation, helping to give young people the confidence and purpose they need to make a success of their lives and the world around them. I know from my own personal experiences of school, and the various charities with which I have been involved, how many young people are not given the best chance in life. I cannot think of a better mission to take on."
RCVS President Chris Tufnell said: "I feel very fortunate to have worked closely with Nick over his five years with the RCVS; he has made a tremendous contribution to the College and our professions. With his energy and drive, he has infused the College with a culture of openness, engagement and dedication and has inspired the team through some impressive achievements.
"Nick’s leadership will enable vets and veterinary nurses to fulfil their potential and it's fitting that he's moving on to a role which benefits the lives of others. Meanwhile, there's a considerable amount of important work being done by the RCVS and I am confident that we have a strong team at Belgravia House to manage this until the new CEO is in post."
The RCVS says its Operational Board will be reflecting on Nick’s successes and the future needs of the College, before developing a specification for the new CEO and a recruitment process over the coming weeks.
Vetswap was set up by Luke Ramsden and Euan McKee MsRCVS, two globe-trotting veterinary surgeons who saw the opportunity for colleagues in the profession to combine work and travel without losing the security of their long-term job.
As part of the partnership, VetSurgeon Jobs now includes a dedicated section for VetSwap which contains a link to job swap opportunities posted by the company.
VetSurgeon.org Editor Arlo Guthrie said: "Job swapping sounds like a great way to get a fresh-perspective and gain some CPD, not to mention a holiday in the sun.
"VetSwap is a natural fit with VetSurgeon Jobs, broadening the range of opportunities we can offer.
"On top of that, VetSurgeon.org exists to support veterinary surgeons, so when Euan and Luke contacted me, I was only too pleased to do what I can to try and give them a leg up."
VetSwap is now running a competition to win £200 worth of Amazon vouchers and a free VetSwap. All you have to do is visit their Facebook page and share this post with a colleague: https://www.facebook.com/VetSwapTM/videos/1881120178807211/
Amir Kashiv faced a charge of being unfit to practise veterinary surgery after twice being found guilty of letting dogs roam freely on public highways or land not owned or controlled by him in Peterborough Magistrates’ Court, once on 20 April 2016 and once on 16 November 2016, and by having repeatedly breached court orders in relation to the same.
Dr Kashiv admitted the convictions, but denied that individually or in any combination they rendered him unit to practise veterinary surgery. This was therefore left to the judgement of the Committee.
In considering whether the convictions rendered Dr Kashiv unfit for practice, the Committee first considered the facts of the convictions.
Dr Kashiv had long taken in house dogs with physical and behavioural problems, at some stages having as many as 30 on his property. In 2014 neighbours became concerned by dogs escaping and noise nuisances, and on 14 November 2014 Dr Kashiv was served by the Police with a Warning Notice, requiring him to install adequate fencing within 28 days.
Four days later he was then served with an Abatement Notice for a Noise Nuisance about the dogs, and on 10 January 2015 he was then served with a Community Protection Notice requiring him to stop his dogs roaming and ensure adequate fencing.
After multiple subsequent escapes Dr Kashiv pleaded guilty of being in breach of the Community Protection Order at the Magistrates’ Court on 20 April 2016, receiving penalties amounting to £5,000 and costs of £6,000, as well as a two year Criminal Behaviour Order requiring him to reduce the number of dogs to no more than five with 28 days, and requiring his dogs to be supervised at all times while they were outside the house.
Two months later one of the dogs was seen outside the property, resulting in another conviction for breach of the Criminal Behaviour Order on 16 November 2016, and Dr Kashiv was fined £250 as well as £250 in costs.
The Committee then considered whether this resulted in Dr Kashiv being unfit to practise veterinary surgery. It considered it a serious matter that a veterinary surgeon should allow himself to be made subject to a Warning Notice, and that, being subject to such a Notice, he should then be found in repeated breach of the Notice and invite prosecution. While the Committee accepts that it is difficult to fence his entire grounds, ten acres in total, the Committee took it as a mark against Dr Kashiv that he failed to address the concerns of the authorities by reducing the number of dogs he housed until he was compelled to do so.
Jane Downes, who was chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee regards this as a case close to borderline. These offences, involving the mismanagement by a veterinary surgeon of his animals and repeated offences demonstrate that Dr Kashiv had a less than adequate insight in 2014 and 2015 into the seriousness of the situation or into the understandable concerns of his neighbours and of the authorities. They are capable of bringing the profession into disrepute so as to undermine public confidence in it.
"But, in the end, The Committee has concluded that Dr Kashiv is not unfit by reason of these convictions to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
"It is apparent from the material before the Committee that Dr Kashiv is a dedicated veterinary surgeon whose life’s work has been devoted to the welfare of small animals and who has gone to extraordinary lengths, at his own expense, to do all that he possibly could to alleviate the suffering of, and rehabilitate, unloved and abandoned and unwell dogs.
"In all the circumstances and in the light of all the evidence the Committee finds that the convictions, whether taken individually or in any combination, do not render Dr Kashiv unfit to practice veterinary surgery."
VETNAPP offers a replacement to paper records and allows entry of drugs administered, physiological parameters (for example heart rate, respiratory rate and blood pressure) and complications occurring during an anaesthetic. The final anaesthetic chart can be converted to a PDF and attached to patient records.
Alastair said: "My motivation for creating the app was born of my frustration while working in Australia about how many handwritten anaesthetic records were incomplete and poorly filled in.
"I developed the app in partnership with an IT graduate at the University of Sydney. It is a replacement for paper records, with features such as you cannot move on to the next page until all data fields are complete. It also allows storage of thousands of records, therefore, allows easy retrieval of records, and prevents lost records which is common with paper records.
"I also would like to eventually have a cloud-based storage of data to allow anaesthesia studies such as drugs used, morbidity/mortality studies, to be carried out on a large scale basis, rather than single centre studies."
VETNAPP has been designed to meet the needs of both general practitioner veterinary surgeons and veterinary specialists in anaesthesia and analgesia.
At present, VETNAPP is only available for the iPad, priced at £59.99.
To download VETNAPP, go to: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/vetnapp/id980918731?mt=8.
251 veterinary surgeons and 124 veterinary nurses took part in the Permanent Salary Survey. 109 veterinary surgeons and 51 veterinary nurses took part in the Locum Pay Rate Survey.
The majority of respondents to the Permanent Salary Survey (69%) worked in the Midlands and south, but the survey didn't make any allowance for experience or qualifications, so it's difficult to read much into the reported figures. However, they were as follows:
Veterinary Surgeons
Veterinary Nurses
Under £15K
n/a
12.98%
£16K to £20K
<£20K 5.84%
40.46%
£21K to £25K
8.03%
38.93%
£26K-£30K
12.04%
6.87%
£31K-£35K
20.80%
>£30K 0.76%
£36K-£40K
24.09%
£41K-£45K
13.14%
The Locum Pay Rate Survey also made no allowance for experience or qualifications, but it may be that locum pay rates are less experience-sensitive than permanent salaries.
<£180
9.84%
<£8
0%
£180-£190
1.64%
£8-£9
1.72%
£190-£200
2.46%
£9-£10
£200-£210
5.74%
£10-£11
3.45%
£210-£220
6.56%
£11-£12
5.17%
£220-£230
17.21%
£12-£13
17.24%
£230-£240
13.11%
£13-£14
13.79%
The average charge rate for locum veterinary surgeons was £210 per day, and for veterinary nurses, around £13.50 per hour. The majority of the locum respondents (69%) worked in the Midlands and south.
Interestingly, 53.5% of the locums polled said that demand for their services had increased over the year.
If you are a locum, don't forget to complete your profile on VetSurgeon.org and add your flag to the VetSurgeon Locum Map.
TVM says Emedog provides less wastage, provides easier dosing and is a solution designed specifically for veterinary use.
Simon Boulton MRCVS, Marketing Manager at TVM said: "The use of apomorphine in practice is a vital first-line response when emesis is required due to the ingestion of unwanted substances.
However, 86% of vets questioned thought that wastage was an issue with Apometic and many thought that dosing was difficult in very small animals due to tiny volumes. The new solution is Emedog. Practitioners must be aware that the dose of Emedog is different to that of Apometic and use accordingly."
TVM have provided a dosing guide as part of a changeover pack to aid in the transition. For a copy, contact your local TVM territory manager, email them via help@tvm-uk.com, download from www.tvm-uk.com or ring 01737 781416.
New legislation will be introduced in the New Year making slaughterhouse CCTV a legal requirement in all areas where live animals are present, with unrestricted access to at least 90 days of footage for Official Veterinarians. The new law will come into force in the spring, with slaughterhouses allowed an adjustment period of up to six months.
The new legislation followed a public consultation which was overwhelmingly in favour of compulsory CCTV. Defra says that out of almost 4,000 respondents, more than 99% were supportive of the plans.
Environment Secretary Michael Gove said: "We have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world and want to cement our status as a global leader by continuing to raise the bar.
"The reaction to this consultation highlights the strength of feeling among the public that all animals should be treated with the utmost respect at all stages of life and be subject to the highest possible welfare standards.
"These strong measures also provide a further demonstration to consumers around the world that as we leave the EU we continue to produce our food to the very highest standards."
BVA Senior Vice President Gudrun Ravetz said: "The mandatory installation of CCTV is a vital tool to ensure high standards of animal health, welfare and food safety in all slaughterhouses.
Official Veterinarians carry out an essential role in slaughterhouses by independently assessing and reporting breaches of animal welfare, and unrestricted access to CCTV footage will allow them to carry out this role even more effectively.
We have been campaigning for these measures for a number of years and it is reassuring to see such a high level of support for their implementation from industry and the public."
Heather Hancock, Chairman of the Food Standards Agency, said: "The Secretary of State’s decision to require CCTV in all slaughterhouses is a welcome step towards ensuring that animal welfare and hygiene standards are met across the meat industry.
"Last year, the FSA Board concluded that, without mandatory CCTV in slaughterhouses, we would see minimal further progress in businesses improving animal welfare or complying with official controls to protect public health.
"We look forward to working with the industry as CCTV plans are implemented, and to seeing public confidence rise as a result."
The government will now further discuss the details of bringing in the proposals and present draft legislation to Parliament as soon as Parliamentary time allows.
Photo: Lititz, Pennsylvania. Hoisting a slaughtered steer in Benjamin Lutz's slaughterhouse, 1942. Wikipedia.
Mr Gove ministerial statement followed the brouhaha last week when MP's voted against transferring the EU protocol on animal sentience into UK law.
However, Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith said in a tweet that the vote had not been about whether or not MPs recognise animals as sentient, but about the best legal framework within which to deliver high standards of animal welfare. Rachel Maclean, MP for Redditch also weighed in, saying that the idea that MPs had voted against animals as sentient beings was 'fake news'.
Mr Gove's ministerial statement reads as follows:
"This Government is committed to the very highest standards of animal welfare. As the Prime Minister has set out, we will make the United Kingdom a world leader in the care and protection of animals.
It has been suggested that the vote last week on New Clause 30 of the EU Withdrawal Bill somehow signalled a weakening in the protection of animals - that is wrong. Voting against the amendment was not a vote against the idea that animals are sentient and feel pain - that is a misconception.
Ministers explained on the floor of the house that this Government’s policies on animal welfare are driven by our recognition that animals are indeed sentient beings and we are acting energetically to reduce the risk of harm to animals – whether on farms or in the wild. The vote against New Clause 30 was the rejection of a faulty amendment, which would not have achieved its stated aims of providing appropriate protection for animals.
The Prime Minister has made clear that we will strengthen our animal welfare rules. This government will ensure that any necessary changes required to UK law are made in a rigorous and comprehensive way to ensure animal sentience is recognised after we leave the EU. The Withdrawal Bill is not the right place to address this, however we are considering the right legislative vehicle.
We are already proposing primary legislation to increase maximum sentences for animal cruelty from six months to five years, and the creation of a new statutory, independent body to uphold environmental standards.
The current EU instrument – Article 13 – has not delivered the progress we want to see. It does not have direct effect in law – in practice its effect is very unclear and it has failed to prevent practices across the EU which are cruel and painful to animals.
In contrast, here in the UK, we are improving animal welfare standards without EU input and beyond the scope of Article 13. We are making CCTV mandatory in all slaughterhouses – a requirement which goes above and beyond any EU rule. We will consult on draft legislation to jail animal abusers for up to five years – more than almost every other European nation. We propose combatting elephant poaching with a ban on the ivory trade which is more comprehensive than anywhere else in Europe. Our ban on microbeads which harm marine animals has been welcomed by Greenpeace as “the strongest in the world”, and is certainly the strongest in Europe.
Once we have left the EU there is even more we could do. EU rules prevent us from restricting or banning the live export of animals for slaughter. EU rules also restrict us from cracking down on puppy smuggling or banning the import of puppies under 6 months. Article 13 has not stopped any of these practices – but leaving the EU gives us the chance to do much better. We hope to say more in these areas next year.
This government will continue to promote and enhance animal welfare, both now and after we have left the EU."
Photo: Curious cattle on farmland in Cornwall UK. Shzphoto/Shutterstock
Brigite said: "We are leading an international multi-centre study to further investigate the impact of this heart disorder on the quality of life and life expectancy of affected dogs.
"This is an extremely important research project, so we need the co-operation of referring vets in the area to send cases to us to be included in the study. Clearly, the more cases we can assess then the more we can learn and the more we can help.
"The hope is this study will revolutionise the way in which this condition is treated in dogs around the world, both improving their day-to-day lives as well as giving them longer at home with their families."
For more information, visit: www.willows.uk.net
John Davies and Tom Lonsdale MsRCVS both objected to edits made by the College to their candidate statements.
Mr Davies explained in his statement how he'd been subject to "bewildering, unfounded and damaging allegations" from two veterinary nurses, one of which he says resulted in his dismissal from a practice at which he was a partner. He went on to explain how, in addition to taking the dismissal case to an employment tribunal and winning, he had also raised concerns with the College about the nurses who'd made the allegations against him. Mr Davies outlined the way he felt that the RCVS mismanaged his case and how that had driven him to stand for Council to try and address the grave concerns he now had about the governance of the profession. However, the Returning Officer redacted the details on the grounds that they were considered to be defamatory and/or factually misleading.
The main grounds for Mr Lonsdale’s challenge was that the election had been furthered by corrupt practices, namely undue influence (all in terms of the Misrepresentation of the People Act 1983). In addition, the Returning Officer edited Mr Lonsdale’s candidate statement before circulation to the electorate, refusing to include hypertext links and removing references that the Returning Officer believed to be defamatory. The Returning Officer also declined to publish his ‘Quiz the candidates’ video on the RCVS website and/or YouTube channel when requests to make minor amendments considered defamatory were refused.
Both challenges were lodged with the RCVS last July, after which the College set up a Challenge Committee in accordance with the election challenge procedure, approved by Privy Council. It comprised three members of Council nominated by RCVS President Stephen May.
Sitting with one of the RCVS Legal Assessors – Mr Richard Price OBE QC – the Challenge Committee was required to decide whether to declare the election void, based on whether the alleged irregularity in question rendered the election substantially not in accordance with the RCVS Council Election Scheme, or that the irregularity concerned significantly affected the result of the election (in which Mr Lonsdale and Mr Davies came 15th and 16th respectively out of 16 candidates).
Following written submissions from both the RCVS and Mr Davies, the Challenge Committee dismissed Mr Davies’s challenge, stating that there was no irregularity in the conduct of the election on the part of the Returning Officer, and that there was no valid basis for challenging the validity of the election.
The Challenge Committee (comprising the same members as for Mr Davies’s challenge) also dismissed Mr Lonsdale’s challenge, stating that it considered it to be 'totally devoid of merit'.
Prior to reaching this decisions, however, two preliminary challenges made by Mr Lonsdale were also considered and dismissed.
The first related to the members of the Challenge Committee, whom Mr Lonsdale argued should stand down on the basis of actual or apparent bias based on his allegations of connections with the pet food industry.
The Committee considered that a fair-minded and informed observer, having understood the facts, would conclude that the connection of committee members to the pet food industry were '….remote, indirect and, in the case of one panel member, virtually non-existent'.
Each committee member was satisfied that there was '…no real possibility of their judgement being distorted or influenced by any interest in, or links with, the pet food industry.'
The second challenge was to The Legal Assessor, who had been appointed to advise the Committee. Mr Lonsdale had alleged that Mr Price had displayed bias in the way that he had given advice to the Committee in relation to the challenge to the Committee membership. This was also dismissed.
Titled 'Animal Welfare For The Many, Not The Few' (uh?), the policy proposes appointing an Animal Welfare Commissioner to ensure Government policy across Whitehall is informed by the latest scientific evidence on animal sentience.
The proposed policies in the document include a number of things the Conservatives have already been working on, such as:
Prohibiting the third party sale of puppies. All puppies will need to be sold with their mother on site.
Increasing maximum sentences for those convicted of animal cruelty.
Introducing mandatory CCTV in all slaughterhouses.
Enshrining the principle of animal sentience in law, covering all policy areas to prevent practices that expose animals to cruel and degrading treatment.
Introducing a ban on ivory trading.
However, Labour propose a number of additional ideas which are now open for a public consultation, including:
Improving accessibility to vets for those on low incomes/receiving financial support, working with organisations like the PDSA to explore how access to affordable vet care can be expanded.
Banning the use of animal shock collars, including sale and importation.
Expanding mandatory microchipping to cats.
Consulting with landlords and tenants on the ability for tenants to keep pets as default unless there is evidence that the animal is causing a nuisance.
Ending the badger cull.
Strengthening the Hunting Act, closing loopholes that allow for illegal hunting of foxes and hares.
Banning Foie Gras (which the Conservatives say is impossible under EU rules which Labour has said it wishes to continue following post-Brexit)
Mandatory labelling of domestic and imported meat, including country of origin, method of production and slaughter (stun or non-stun)
Requiring motorists to report accidents where an animal has been injured.
Banning wild animals in circuses.
Sue Hayman MP, Labour’s Shadow Environment Secretary, said: "Labour is the party of animal welfare. From bringing in the ban on fox hunting to tightening the rules on the transport of live animals, Labour has always been consistent in our leadership on matters of animal welfare.
"Today we’re making proposals for real, long-term progress. Our vision is one where no animal is made to suffer unnecessary pain and we continue to drive up standards and practice in line with the most recent advances and understanding."
Conservative MP Steve Double said: "Labour are belatedly playing catch-up with the huge progress made by this Government on animal welfare.
However, Labour wouldn’t even be able to deliver some of these promises because they want to keep following EU rules after Brexit.
From introducing mandatory CCTV into slaughter houses to increasing the maximum sentence for animal cruelty ten-fold, the Conservatives will continue taking the action needed to ensure animals receive the proper protection they deserve."
The charity launched the 'Cat Friendly Clinic' accreditation scheme in 2012, in order to raise standards and reduce the stress experienced by cats (and consequently their owners) when visiting clinics.
In order to be accredited as a Cat Friendly Clinic, a clinic must not only meet high standards of cat care in terms of facilities and equipment, but staff must also demonstrate an understanding of the needs and behaviour of cats and put in place measures to ensure that visits to the clinic are more cat-friendly.
In the six years since its inception, the scheme has become a well-recognised standard in feline veterinary care, with accredited clinics all over the world.
The Classic Animal Hospital in South Korea (wow, see the architects' photos here), was founded in September 2017 and consists of three vets, eight nurses and three receptionists. Open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, the clinic's goal is to "provide outstanding veterinary care using the most advanced medical techniques and equipment in an environment that is both comfortable and welcoming for owners and their loved companions’. Currently, about 30% of the clinic’s clients are cats, and this percentage is continuing to grow.
Park Sungwon, owner of the clinic and Chief of Surgery, said: "Since more and more Koreans are having cats as their companion animals, there is growing interest in the Cat Friendly Clinic programme. So many veterinarians who have just started or want to start their own clinic share information about becoming a Cat Friendly Clinic. I also found out about the Cat Friendly Clinic scheme on the vet internet community. When I decided to open my clinic, I planned to become a Cat Friendly Clinic. So I took ISFM’s requirements into consideration when I designed my clinic."
When asked what cat owners think of the clinic’s Cat Friendly status, Park said: "They are very satisfied with our separated, quiet, cat-only waiting area and large hospitalisation facilities. They think that their cats definitely feel more comfortable at my clinic than they feel at other clinics in my town."
Sarah Endersby, International Cat Care’s Veterinary Development Manager, said: "We are delighted to have accredited the 1000th Cat Friendly Clinic. It is fabulous to know that many veterinary clinics around the world are thinking about how they can make feline visits less stressful, benefitting not only the cats themselves, but their owners and the veterinary team. We have many clinics looking to become a Cat Friendly Clinic, so the community is growing quickly - hopefully we will be welcoming the 2000th clinic in the not too distant future!"
To find out more about the Cat Friendly Clinic scheme, visit catfriendlyclinic.org.
The scheme is supported by six official partners: Boehringer Ingelheim, Ceva, Elanco, Idexx, Merial and Royal Canin.
The surveys, which are part of Abi's honours research project, ask veterinary professionals and owners separately to place 'ability to see the same vet', 'staff friendliness', 'competency of vets and nurses', 'appointment availability' and 'appointment waiting times' in order of importance.
It also looks at whether veterinary professionals and owners think practice independence and nurses' clinics have an impact on client loyalty.
The surveys should take less than 10 minutes, and Abi has promised to share the results with VetSurgeon.org and VetNurse.co.uk in due course, so please do take part. It'll be fascinating to see whether there's a mismatch between what vets and nurses think are important, and what clients think!
The survey for veterinary professionals is here.
If you know any owners that would be interested in taking part, the survey for clients is here.
Mr Wood was convicted of three offences which involved the download of 38 videos and 13 indecent images of children, at Portsmouth Magistrates’ Court in December 2017.
In January 2018, he was sentenced to a three-year Community Sentence for each offence, to run concurrently, and was made subject to a five-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order.
He was also fined £1,000 and ordered to pay costs of £340 and a victim surcharge of £85.
Mr Wood was also placed on the barring list by the Disclosure and Barring Service and required to register with the police pursuant to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for a period of five years.
Mr Wood appeared before the Disciplinary Committee, admitted his conviction and accepted that it rendered him unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
In determining the sanction, the Committee says it took into account a number of mitigating factors: his conviction involved no actual harm or risk of harm to an animal; there was no financial gain; he had engaged in open and frank admissions at an early stage; he was experiencing mental ill-health at the time of the offence; he had taken subsequent steps to avoid a repetition of such behaviour; there had been a significant lapse of time since the incident; and he showed insight into the harm caused by his offence.
The Committee also considered that the purpose of a sanction is not to punish, but to protect the welfare of animals, as well as maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct. On consideration of the appropriate sanction, the Committee decided that postponement of judgement was not appropriate, and that taking no action was not an option.
The Committee then considered whether a reprimand or warning was appropriate, but they considered that would not match the gravity of the offence – a period of suspension would also mean Mr Wood would automatically return to the Register after the period of time without the College being able to review his fitness to practise, rendering it an inappropriate sanction. The Committee therefore determined that the removal of Mr Wood from the RCVS Register was the only way to protect the wider public interest and maintain confidence in the profession.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee has not taken this decision lightly, and, lest it be misinterpreted, it has not taken it in order to satisfy any notional public demand for blame and punishment.
"It has taken the decision because in its perception, the reputation of the profession had to be at the forefront of its thinking and ultimately it was more important than the interests of the Respondent.
"The decision is not simply based on the fact that these offences were of a sexual nature but because they were repeated frequently over a significant period of time, and at the time, the Respondent knew on his own admission that what he was doing was wrong.
"Accordingly, the Committee had decided that removal from the Register is appropriate and proportionate in this case. The Committee will direct the Registrar to remove the Respondent’s name from the Register forthwith."
Mr Wood has 28 days to appeal the Committee’s decision after which, if no appeal is received, the Committee’s judgment takes effect.
The new chews incorporate Fr3sh technology, which Virbac says cleanses, cools and addresses the digestive causes of bad breath.
According to the company's research, the new chews provide significant daily breath improvement from Day 1 for a full 24 hours1, as well as continued breath improvement over a 2-week period. 90% of owners highlighted an improvement in bad breath following use of the chews1.
Virbac says the product is also scientifically proven to reduce calculus and plaque when given daily.2
Product Manager Claire Lewis said: "With 2 out of 3 pet owners having a least one dog with bad breath3, we are delighted to be able to add new VeggieDent Fr3sh to the Virbac range of oral healthcare products."
For more information, contact your Virbac Territory Manager.
References:
Canine leishmaniosis is caused by the protozoan Leishmania infantum, which is found in most continents1. L. infantum is most commonly transmitted through the bite of sand flies and Bayer says there is a growing concern among parasitologists that the distribution of the disease is increasing due to climate change and more frequent pet travel.
Dr. Markus Edingloh, Head of Global Veterinary Scientific Affairs at Bayer Animal Health, said: "We are seeing more cases of canine leishmaniosis in areas where the disease had not previously been found. Dogs travelling and imported from endemic areas are of particular concern for introduction of the disease, while climate change is contributing to the spread of the vector.
It is therefore vital that veterinarians are aware of the disease and are recommending appropriate protection for dogs travelling to, or living in, endemic areas."
In dogs, there are a wide range of potential clinical signs associated with leishmaniosis including generalised lymphadenopathy, weight loss, lethargy, pyrexia, cutaneous lesions, ocular lesions and neurological or vascular disorders, while the severity of disease can vary from mild to life threatening2,3. In humans L. infantum tends to be responsible for the most severe form of leishmaniosis, visceral leishmaniasis, which can be fatal.
While distribution is worldwide, L. infantum is particularly prevalent in South America and the Mediterranean, with annual cases of zoonotic visceral leishmaniasis in people estimated to be 3,500 in Brazil and 875 in the Mediterranean1.
In some areas, over 80% of canine leishmaniosis cases may be asymptomatic1. However, the infection level in asymptomatic dogs is such that these dogs, in addition to the dogs showing clinical disease, can still be responsible for the spread of disease4. Therefore protection against infection to help control spread is vital for both human and dog health, as clinical cases will not always be obvious.
The non-profit scientific association, LeishVet, recommends that prevention should include the use of a long-acting topical insecticide throughout the period of sand fly activity: "Long-acting topical insecticides applied to dogs living in or travelling to endemic areas should be maintained during the entire risk period of potential exposure to/or activity of sand flies."
Bayer says that Seresto, which contains imidacloprid and flumethrin in a slow release collar, has been found to significantly reduce the risk of infection with Leishmania infantum in dogs for up to eight months. Three clinical field studies, performed in endemic areas, indicated a significant reduction in the risk of Leishmania infantum transmission by sand flies in treated dogs compared to non-treated dogs. The efficacy in the reduction of the risk of infection with leishmaniosis ranged from 88.3 to 100% 5,6,7.
For more information, visit www.vetcentre.bayer.co.uk/seresto.
References
In one of the finest pieces of investigative journalism since Watergate, the erstwhile-criminal-law-barrister-cum-tv-reporter Robert Rinder discovered that he could buy a wormer for his dog from some online retailer for half the price that he'd bought it at his veterinary practice.
Incensed by his discovery that things can cost less online, Mr Rinder then asked a handful of pet owners whether they could recall seeing a sign at their practice to advise them that they could buy things cheaper elsewhere.
None could. But then I'll bet if he asked whether they could remember a sign for the toilet, they'd have struggled.
Still, by now certain they'd found evidence that pet owners are being 'fleeced', Watchdog then rang 70 practices to ask for the price of some common drugs and then compared them to the prices being offered by online retailers.
Their research confirmed the awful truth. Some places really do charge more than others.
Honestly, who, in a million years, would have guessed?
BBC Watchdog (piece starts at 42:25).
RCVS Registrar, Eleanor Ferguson said: "Changes to the chapter of the supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct titled ‘Miscellaneous procedures: legal and ethical considerations’, specifically in regards to surgical artificial insemination in dogs, were discussed at a meeting of the Standards Committee on 30 January 2019.
"The proposed changes to the guidance were to clarify that surgical artificial insemination (AI) in dogs is prohibited by animal welfare legislation – specifically the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which prohibits mutilations. Prohibited procedures are defined as those which interfere with sensitive tissue or bone structure. Surgical AI in dogs is not one of the exemptions permitted within the Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007.
"Due to an unfortunate oversight, the guidance had not been updated following this legislative change, although, in the interim, the guidance still made it clear that surgical AI in dogs was unlikely to be in the animal’s best interests and could only be carried out and justified in very limited circumstances and for exceptional reasons.
"However, we apologise for the oversight, and as soon as the College was made aware that the guidance on surgical AI did not conform exactly with the legislation and regulations, a paper was prepared for the Standards Committee to consider as soon as possible and update the guidance accordingly.
"As always, if any members of the profession or the public have any questions about any aspect of our Code of Professional Conduct and supporting guidance, they are welcome to contact our Standards and Advice Team on advice@rcvs.org.uk."
It’s very significant because it’s the first time the College has produced material for practices that highlights the responsibilities of pet owners, as well as those of veterinary surgeons and nurses.
As such, it should be a really useful tool to support the advice given by veterinary surgeons and nurses in practice.
In other words, don’t just stick it on the wall in some hidden part of the waiting room. Display it prominently by the reception desk, and point to it when explaining why owners need to make their own arrangements to bring the animal into the practice in emergency, for example. Or why you can’t prescribe drugs when you haven’t seen the animal for 8 years.
The idea for the poster was first mooted by Jonathan Wray MRCVS in the forum on VetSurgeon.org, after he’d seen a similar thing produced by the French regulator for veterinary practices in France.
VetSurgeon.org decided to produce an English version with input from vets as to what they would like a UK version of the poster to say.
On reflection, however, it was always something which would carry so much more clout if it came from the regulator, so we turned the idea over to the RCVS.
To its great credit, the College ran with the idea and had the poster designed and put through its Standards Committee. The result has now been posted to all practices in the UK, with a pdf version available to download from www.rcvs.org.uk/poster.
The RCVS is now inviting feedback about the poster at communications@rcvs.org.uk.
If you like the poster, I really do urge you drop the College a quick line at that email address and say so. Better still - and I will probably be put on the naughty step for saying this - cc L.Lockett@rcvs.org.uk and i.holloway@rcvs.org.uk. It was they who took the idea forward and made it happen. I think they deserve a round of applause.
There are nine candidates standing in this year’s elections, including five existing Council members eligible for re-election and four candidates not currently on Council. They are:
Dr Linda Belton MRCVSAt a glance: Equine clinician. Director of George Veterinary Group, a 40-vet independent practice. Wants to safeguard veterinary surgeons' clinical freedom and prevent it being eroded as a result of corporatisation.
Dr Niall Connell MRCVSAt a glance: After a career largely in small animal charitable practice, Niall had to retire from clinical practice as a result of MS. Has been a council member since 2013 and now RCVS President-elect. By all accounts, something of a national treasure. Wants the College to: "regulate compassionately in partnership with our profession".
Mr John C Davies MRCVSAt a glance: Small animal practitioner who, having had his fingers burned in a failed joint venture arrangement and parts of his election manifesto redacted by the RCVS (it can be read in full here: http://www.johndaviesvet.com), now campaigns for justice, integrity, accountability, freedom of speech and due diligence at the College and in the wider profession.
Dr Joanna (Jo) Dyer MRCVSAt a glance: Small animal locum practitioner who was first elected to council in 2015 after successfully lobbying for changes to the CoPC Guidance following Chikosi. An all round good egg. Argues passionately against changes to the Code of Conduct to allow remote prescribing of POM-Vs.
Professor Timothy (Tim) Greet FRCVSAt a glance: Widely-published equine practitioner and past-pres of BEVA, BVA and WEVA. In favour of RCVS regulation of para-professionals. Argues that whilst technology is to be welcomed, diagnosis and prescribing must be restricted to animals 'under our care'.
Professor John Innes FRCVSAt a glance: RCVS Specialist in small animal orthopaedics (with 85 peer-reviewed papers to his name) and Referrals Director at CVS. Pledges to speak as an independent veterinary surgeon - not a corporate representative - if elected. On record as being pleased that the proposed RCVS telemedicine trial was delayed pending further consultation. In favour of 'nurse practitioner' becoming a regulated option for RVNs.
Dr Thomas (Tom) Lonsdale MRCVSAt a glance: Single-issue candidate with a 23-year history of standing for election to draw attention to the supposed evils of commercial pet foods. Based in Australia. 2000-1 outsider.
Dr Katherine (Kate) Richards MRCVSAt a glance: 15 years in farm animal practice before taking up various positions in industry and government. Champions a healthy work-life balance, fair pay, workplace flexibility and supportive work practices.
Mr Peter Robinson MRCVSAt a glance: A long career in independent farm, equine and small animal practice, followed by a stint in sole practice in Dubai. Has been on Council for 4 years. Like Jo Dyer, argues that when it comes to remote prescribing and telemedicine, "we must not change the standards of ‘under our care'."
Ballot papers and booklets containing candidates’ details and manifestos have been sent by post to all veterinary surgeons eligible to vote and an email containing a unique link to a secure voting site has also been sent by Electoral Reform Services, which runs the election on behalf of the College.
All votes must be cast, either online or by post, by 5pm on Friday 26 April 2019.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for the election, said: "Last year we saw another very strong turnout for the RCVS Council election with over a fifth of the profession casting votes. The turnout was again helped by regular email reminders and the fact the voting website can be easily accessed by just clicking on a link.
"I would like to remind the profession that, following last year’s changes to our governance structure after a Legislative Reform Order was passed through Parliament, you can now only choose up to three candidates. I do hope members of the profession take this opportunity to influence the governance and policies of the RCVS."
Those who are eligible to vote but have not received either an email or ballot paper should contact Luke Bishop, RCVS Senior Communications Officer, on l.bishop@rcvs.org.uk.
I had hoped that the increasing absurdity of the reasons given for the rise might have tipped everyone off to the fact that the story was a spoof.
The idea that the College would ask its members to fund some glitzy, showy, award-winning designer headquarters along the lines of London’s City Hall? C’mon. London City Hall employs 1000 staff, whilst the Royal College employs less than 100. And let's face it, the RCVS has no record of having showy offices. On the contrary, it has managed to operate out of a sardine can now for a great many years. Have you ever been in the lift at Horseferry Road? You need to breathe in.
Or that the College had set aside £6M to recruit and pay 20 veterinary surgeons as short term contracted OVs to help in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Let’s say a flight from Delhi to London costs £500, give or take. Twenty vets. That’s £10,000 to get them here. Let's say they’re here for 6 months. That’s £299,500 per vet. You really think the College is going to ask you to pay more than a quarter of a million pounds to fly in a single vet for 6 months? Or that 20 recruits would solve the predicted OV shortage?
Lastly, the quote, supposedly from an Indian vet, but one with a name that doesn’t really sound like a name (still less an Indian one), but does sound strangely like it may be an anagram of April Fool.
There have been a small number of reports of people being really upset by this story. I guess they must have skim read, or only read the headline.
To them I want to say sorry, I genuinely didn’t mean to upset anyone.
In fact, I thought it might cause some reflection on what good value the RCVS really offers. It maintains the register and thereby your ability to practice, it runs the disciplinary process (an essential component of maintaining public trust), it oversees and sets educational standards, it awards Fellowships, Diplomas and Certificates, it runs the Practice Standards Scheme.
All that, and more for £340 per annum?
Honestly? I think it would be cheap at half the price.
Photo: Truth is that the RCVS has operated out of a sardine can for years.By Rl - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link
For the study, Tim Charlesworth, an RCVS Specialist in Small Animal Surgery from Eastcott Referrals (pictured right), analysed 260 cases where dogs had undergone laparoscopic or open surgical ovariectomy between January 2013 and January 2018 by the same team of similarly experienced surgeons using standard practice anaesthetic, theatre and perioperative protocols. Complications were then compared between the two groups.
44% (46) of the dogs that underwent open ovariectomy developed a complication, compared to 20% (31) of those that underwent laparoscopic ovariectomy.
Whilst the authors acknowledge the limitations of a retrospective study and emphasise that confirmation requires a randomised trial, they say that when considered alongside previously demonstrated improved postoperative comfort and earlier return to normal function, laparoscopy could be considered preferable for ovariectomy in dogs.
The hearing concerned an incident which took place at the VetsNow Huyton premises in Liverpool. There were two charges against Dr Rafiq. The first was that in December 2017, shortly after a litter of puppies was delivered by caesarean to a French Bulldog named Lila, she took one of the puppies away from the practice with the intention that it should not be returned to Lila’s owner and that, in doing so, she was dishonest, misleading and had not acted in the best interest of the puppy’s welfare.
Another puppy was taken away by an animal care assistant who was also working at Vets Now Huyton on the night in question.
The second charge against Dr Rafiq was that she had told her employer at VetsNow that the puppy she had taken from the practice had died in the car when she had been driving home when, in fact, the puppy was alive at that stage and, in telling her employer this, she had been dishonest and misleading.
There was one charge against Mr Perez: that he had made an entry in the clinical records for Lila that she had given birth to four live puppies when in fact she had six; that he had only discharged four of the six puppies to the owner; that he knew that his colleagues intended to remove or had removed the puppies; that he had failed to prevent the removal of the puppies and had failed to report to a colleague the removal of the puppies. The charge also stated that, in relation to the incident, Mr Perez had been dishonest, misleading, did not act in the best interests of the puppies’ welfare and failed to keep accurate clinical records.
At the outset of the hearing, Dr Rafiq admitted in full the charges against her and accepted that she had acted dishonestly. Mr Perez admitted some of the charges against him including that he had made the false clinical record, had discharged four rather than six puppies and had failed to keep accurate clinical records, however he denied any knowledge of the intention to remove puppies and denied that his conduct had been misleading or dishonest.
The Committee was not satisfied that Mr Perez knew at the time of surgery that his colleagues intended to remove the puppies and also considered there was insufficient evidence that he subsequently became aware of their removal.
As a result, the Committee found that he could not have prevented their removal or reported the matter to a colleague. However, the Committee did find that his actions were unintentionally misleading regarding the clinical records and the discharge of the incorrect number of puppies.
The Committee found all the charges against Dr Rafiq proven.
The Committee considered whether the admitted and/or proven charges against Dr Rafiq and Mr Perez amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In respect of Mr Perez, the Committee was critical of his failure to keep accurate clinical records and considered that it was his duty to know how many puppies were born and to record them accurately.
However, while the Committee concluded that Mr Perez’s conduct fell below the expected professional standards of a veterinary surgeon, it did not fall so short as to constitute serious professional misconduct. As a result, no further action was taken against Mr Perez.
In regard to Dr Rafiq, the Committee recognised her admission at the outset that her actions constituted serious professional misconduct and noted her expression of remorse.
The Committee did however have concerns regarding the evidence she gave as to her actions being motivated by animal welfare concerns. The Committee felt that such concerns should have been raised with colleagues and it found that Dr Rafiq had acted recklessly and had been dishonest both with the owner and with her colleagues.
The Committee therefore concluded that her conduct fell so far short of what would be expected of a veterinary surgeon that it constituted serious professional misconduct.
The Committee then considered the sanction against Dr Rafiq, taking into account aggravating and mitigating factors. The aggravating factors included a risk of injury to the puppies, an abuse of the client’s trust, sustained misconduct as the puppy was retained by Dr Rafiq from 2/3 December until its actual death on the night of 5 December, that the dishonesty was sustained until 7 December and that she had only demonstrated limited insight in respect of her wider professional responsibilities.
In mitigation, the Committee considered that her actions involved no financial gain, that it was a single and isolated incident, that she had no previous adverse findings, that she had demonstrated genuine remorse and that she had made admissions at an early stage.
Dr Rafiq, who was unrepresented during the hearing, also submitted evidence in mitigation including testimonials from colleagues and clients, her youth and inexperience at the time, and her remorse, among other things.
In deciding the sanction Ian Arundale, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: "The Committee concluded that Dr Rafiq was a competent veterinary surgeon who was very unlikely to pose a risk to animals in the future.
"However, it considered the reputation of the profession and the need to uphold standards was an important consideration that outweighed the hardship which would be suffered by Dr Rafiq by not being able to practise in her chosen profession. It considered that Dr Rafiq would be fit to return to the profession after a period of suspension.
"It therefore determined that, notwithstanding the nature and extent of the dishonesty in this case, a suspension order was a sufficiently severe sanction to maintain the reputation of the profession and to meet the wider public interest. It took into consideration the overall dishonesty, including that Dr Rafiq had been dishonest when first confronted about these matters, when deciding on the length of any suspension.
"The Committee considered the sanction of suspension was proportionate in the circumstances of this case where there was supporting evidence that Dr Rafiq was a competent and well-regarded veterinary surgeon. It considered the positive testimonial evidence given… and that she was held in high regard by her current employers who were aware of the admitted misconduct, were significant factors in deciding that a suspension order was the proportionate sanction."
The Committee determined that a six-month suspension order would be the most appropriate sanction under the circumstances and directed the Registrar to remove Dr Rafiq from the Register for this period of time.