Following Pets at Home's recall of four cat food products found to be low in thiamine, Davies Veterinary Specialists has issued advice for veterinary professionals and pet owners about the diagnosis and treatment of thiamine deficiency in cats.  

The practice says that because thiamine deficiency in cats is generally rare, the number of recent cases seen in the UK has been a cause for concern amongst veterinary surgeons.

Symptoms may include severe weight loss or anorexia, vomiting, impaired vision, dilated pupils, tremors and seizures. Prompt treatment is needed, usually in the form of thiamine injections, an oral supplement and an immediate change of food as a precaution.

Laurent Garosi RCVS & European Veterinary Specialist in Neurology at Davies Veterinary Specialists said: "In 20 years I have only seen a handful of cases. My concern is that there may be many more cats out there in need of a diagnosis which is why we are building awareness and supporting our referring vets in the diagnosis of this condition."

To that end, Laurent posted on the subject on Facebook, which immediately went viral, with more than 1.1 million people reached and 9000+ shares. 

Davies Veterinary Specialists has followed Laurent's post with support and advice for pet owners, explaining the symptoms to look out for and the emergency measures to take. The practice has also sent more detailed information direct to its referring practices: 

What are the signs of thiamine deficiency in cats? 
Initially most cats will show anorexia and some degree of vomiting preceding neurological signs which include fairly rapid onset of impaired vision, dilated pupils, ataxia, vestibular signs, tremors and seizures.

How do you diagnose thiamine deficiency? 
It is based on a combination of factors: clinical presentation, MRI findings, which are fairly typical (although not pathognomonic) and response to thiamine supplementation.  Absolute confirmation is technically difficult and not widely available: direct measurement of thiamine in the blood may not reflect deficiency, as this is not a good reflection of tissue concentration of Thiamine.  Indirect methods are functional tests looking at effects of thiamine or lack of it: demonstration of reduced transketolase activity in red blood cells which is not readily available for most veterinary practices, or other indirect methods such measuring abnormal metabolites such as organic acids in the urine.

What are the causes of thiamine deficiency in dogs and cats? 
There are three main causes: 1) inability to absorb thiamine due to gastro-intestinal disease, 2) inability to process thiamine due to liver disease and 3) decreased level of thiamine in food. The latter can be caused by the heating process used for food preparation (thiamine is destroyed by heat), addition of sulphur dioxide or sulphite preservatives to meat which inactivate thiamine and feeding food rich in thiaminase activity such as some raw fish. Therefore all-raw fish diet in cats can be a cause of thiamine deficiency.

What to do if you suspect you have a cat with thiamine deficiency and whose diet consists of a product being recalled? 
Unless the cat is showing neurological signs, the first step is to stop the diet and switch to another diet not listed in the recall.  Thiamine supplementation (intramuscular injection) is advised in the first instance in a case with compatible neurological signs. Other causes for the neurological signs must be considered in the case of failing to respond to Thiamine injections within 24-48 hours.

DVS says it is working closely with their referring vets to raise awareness and diagnose any affected animals.

For more information, visit: www.vetspecialists.co.uk and www.facebook.com/DVSvets/

The RCVS has published the results of a survey of EU veterinary surgeons and nurses working in the UK which shows a high degree of fear and uncertainty caused by Brexit, causing many to question whether they will stay.

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:

• On continuing to work in the UK: 73% of respondents said they would like to continue to work in the UK. However, 41% of respondents said they were not optimistic about their future, 67% were finding the uncertainty about their future difficult, 64% felt less welcome, 44% felt fearful about the future and 40% felt they had reduced job security. Furthermore, 40% of respondents said they were more likely to leave, with 18% actively looking for work outside the UK. Some 79% are awaiting the outcome of the Brexit negotiations before deciding on what to do.
• On the impact of Brexit on veterinary sector: 88% of respondents believed that the UK will have a shortage of veterinary surgeons if non-UK EU national vets are no longer welcome in the country. Some 77% also believed that EU-graduate vets are also less likely to apply to join the UK Register.
• On their experience of prejudice: 16% of respondents said they had personally experienced prejudice at work following the vote to leave the EU with 22% saying they had observed it.
• On support from the College: 74% of respondents said they were happy with the support and advice provided by the RCVS so far.

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

VetSwap, the job-exchange service for veterinary surgeons and nurses, has joined forces with VetSurgeon Jobs in order to help spread the word about the benefits of temporarily swapping jobs.

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/ 

Alastair Mair, a European Specialist in Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia at Willows Veterinary Centre has developed a new app to ensure all vital details of an anaesthetic procedure are recorded efficiently and effectively.

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. 

TVM (previously Forum Animal Health) has announced that over the coming weeks, Apometic will be replaced by Emedog, a new, improved apomorphine injection with a new concentration and new dose.

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.

Environment Secretary Michael Gove has confirmed today that the sentience of animals will continue to be recognised and protections strengthened when the United Kingdom leaves the EU.

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

Two candidates for the 2017 RCVS Council elections have had their challenge of the results dismissed by a committee tasked with assessing their claims.

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 15^th and 16^th 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.

International Cat Care has announced that the Classic Animal Hospital in South Korea has become its 1000th 'Cat Friendly Clinic'.

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 1000^th 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 2000^th 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.

Portsmouth-based Simon Wood has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after being convicted of possessing indecent images of children.

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.

Bayer Animal Health has announced that Seresto, it's flea and tick collar for cats and dogs, has now been granted approval to be used to reduce the risk of canine leishmaniosis via transmission by sand flies for up to 8 months.

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 threatening^2,3. 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

The RCVS has confirmed that surgical insemination in dogs is prohibited by animal welfare laws and amended Section 27 of the supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct so that it now sits alongside tail docking, dew claw removal, prosthetic testicles and feline renal transplantation from living donors on the list of banned procedures.

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."

Voting has now opened in the 2019 RCVS Council election. Eligible veterinary surgeons can now vote online or by posting their paper ballot.

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 MRCVS
  At 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 MRCVS
  At 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 MRCVS
  At 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 MRCVS
  At 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 FRCVS
  At 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 FRCVS
  At 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 MRCVS
  At 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 MRCVS
  At 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 MRCVS
  At 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.

A retrospective study published in the BSAVA's Journal of Small Animal Practice suggests that complications are less common after a laparoscopic than an open ovariectomy¹.

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. 

Reference

1. Charlesworth, T. M. and Sanchez, F. T. (2019), A comparison of the rates of postoperative complications between dogs undergoing laparoscopic and open ovariectomy. J Small Anim Pract, 60: 218-222. doi:10.1111/jsap.12993