Lizzie joined the College as Head of Communications in February 2005, in which role she oversaw the launch of the Practice Standards Scheme in 2006, an overhaul of the College’s design and branding in 2011 and the joint British Veterinary Association Vet Futures project in 2014. More recently, she has been the driving force behind the Mind Matters mental health initiative.
Lizzie was appointed as Director of Strategic Communications in November 2015 and Deputy CEO in September 2016. She became Acting CEO when Nick Stace left the position of CEO at the end of September 2017.
The College advertised the position in the Sunday Times online for four weeks, and used a recruitment agency called Saxton Bampfylde. In all, 60 candidates applied.
RCVS President Professor Stephen May said: "This was a very rigorous recruitment process with a very strong field of candidates and so it is a testament to Lizzie’s abilities and achievements that she saw off all the opposition.
"For some time Lizzie has been involved in setting the direction of the College through the Strategic Plan and the initiatives and projects that she has managed, which really have had a very tangible impact on the profession.
"For example, the Vet Futures project has encouraged the profession to think more strategically about the issues that are facing it and how to achieve constructive solutions, while the Mind Matters Initiative has helped get veterinary mental health further up the agenda and reduced the stigma that many feel about it.
"Her drive and her passion has really pushed these projects forward and I believe she will bring this to the role of CEO.”
Lizzie said: "I am delighted and feel honoured to have been chosen to take the College forward into its next stage of development. I see the Council’s choice of an internal candidate, able to maintain momentum for change and help the College continue on our current strategic path, as an endorsement of the amazing work of the staff at Belgravia House.
"Under Nick Stace’s leadership, the College achieved some really excellent things for the profession, the public, and animal health and welfare, and I look forward to our next exciting chapter."
The protesters, which VetSurgeon.org understands comprise six veterinary surgeons and 30-40 pet owners, started their march in Parliament Square and are now bearing down on the RCVS Headquarters in Horseferry Road.
The campaigners are, we are told, protesting against the RCVS position statement on complementary and homeopathic veterinary medicines.
No word yet on how the College proposes to defend itself from the hoard; certainly no sign of any cauldrons of boiling oil atop the battlements, nor any riot police yet in evidence.
More news as it happens. VetSurgeon.org has a photographer on the ground ...UPDATES
1:00pm: The protesters have arrived at Belgravia House. A couple of protesters are armed with umbrellas, presumably to guard against the ever-present risk of overdose. It's getting messy: we're hearing that they've blocked the pavement. Wait up. Someone has emerged from the College to speak with them. Well hello, Mr President.
1:01pm: We were hoping that some of the protesters might, I dunno, handcuff themselves to Belgravia House or something. But after a tense standoff lasting over 36 seconds, it looks like the protest is petering out already. Apparently they've started dispersing to the park opposite.
1:02pm: Yup, they've all gone off to the park now. This may go down as one of the shortest protests in history.
1:16pm: Word has it they've headed off to the White Horse and Bower.More photos of this momentous occasion to follow ...
1. The seasoned campaigner is always careful to choose any banner that appears over their head with great care.
2. It was a beautiful march. A big march. The bigliest. Haven't seen that many people on the street since Donald Trump's inauguration.
3. The RCVS headquarters under siege.
4. Millie the dog (perhaps better called 'Millie the anecdote') illustrates the flawed thinking behind homeopathy.
5. Nobody told this campaigner than homeopathy wasn't banned in the first place. You can get it from any tap.
6. RCVS President, Professor Stephen May, presumably wishing he'd taken the day off work.
7. It took some hours moments before the crowd dispersed fully and life in London was able to return to normal.
3.43pm: The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has issued a statement following the march, which says:
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons today met a delegation of around 40 animal owners and veterinary surgeons who wished to voice their concern about a recent position statement by RCVS Council on the use of complementary and alternative medicines, including homeopathy.
President Stephen May and CEO Lizzie Lockett received a copy of an online petition that was set up following the statement, which has since received around 15,000 signatures, including around 11,000 from supporters in the UK.
Stephen and Lizzie also took time to hear accounts and stories from the supporters, and to listen to the points they wished to raise.
In view of the cold, wet weather, the College had laid on some hot drinks for all the visitors, and invited the delegation inside, but these were declined.
Stephen said: "We were pleased to be able to meet our visitors today and to receive their petition, although it was a little tricky trying to answer questions on a busy London pavement!
"We continue to recognise that homeopathy and other complementary therapies are popular amongst some animal owners and certain members of the veterinary profession, as indicated by today’s delegation, but it is worth reiterating that the RCVS Council statement does not ban their use.
"What it does state, is that in order to protect animal welfare, we regard such treatments as being complementary, rather than alternative, to treatments for which there is a recognised evidence base or which are based on sound scientific principles.
"This is similar to the position that we have held on complementary therapies for many years, but we will always be happy to receive and consider scientific evidence that demonstrates their efficacy."
I wouldn't hold your breath.
All photographs ©2017 Under licence to London News Pictures Ltd. +44 208 088 1155
The new guidance is being launched as part of the company's Keeping Britain’s Pets Healthy (KBPH) preventative healthcare initiative.
The guidance includes 18 recommendations designed to help all members of the practice team to implement consistent, effective improvements in preventative healthcare.
The recommendations were the result of a package of research carried out by Dr Rachel Dean, Dr Marnie Brennan, Dr Natalie Robinson and Dr Zoe Belshaw at the university’s vet school, including a systematic review of the literature, a survey of veterinary surgeons and in-depth interviews with vets and owners. A final study used the Delphi technique to achieve consensus amongst 26 first opinion practitioners and 8 pet owners.
The recommendations invite practices to consider a number of ways they might improve the consultation process, including: the purpose of the consultation, the role of each member of the practice team, and how pet owner expectations should be addressed and communicated during the process.
John Helps, Senior Technical Manager at MSD Animal Health said: "Our new KBPH initiative marks a step change in our emphasis on preventative healthcare.
"It aims to champion the central role each member of the veterinary practice team plays as experts in educating and engaging our nation of pet lovers.
"These evidence-based guidelines are just the first step towards our increased emphasis on communicating the importance of the annual preventative health visit.
"They support the partnership between the practice and its clients around the health and welfare of their pets, and the significant contribution vaccines and parasiticides make to the health and welfare of their pets. They also help the whole team understand their specific role in the provision of preventative healthcare."
You can download the full recommendations here.
Reference
In part one of the article, Professor Ernst made the case that homeopathy has no place in veterinary (or human) evidence-based medicine.
In part two, he considered a number of other types of so-called alternative medicine (or 'SCAM', as he called it in the self-published version) for animals, including acupuncture, chiropractic, energy healing and dietary supplements, concluding that most such SCAMS are unproven and that 'arguably it is unethical to use unproven medicines in routine veterinary care'.
Now is it just me, or does anyone else find the Veterinary Record position rather worrying?
Surely a scientific journal should concern itself with one thing and one thing only: the search for scientific truth?
Surely, therefore, the question of how many veterinary surgeons use a therapy is completely irrelevant. Or am I being idealistic?
I also struggle with the idea that Professor Ernst could be told to go away and provide more balance.
How exactly is anyone supposed to balance the argument that there's no evidence that a therapy works? The only counter or balancing argument would be that it does. Catch 22.
Most learned people know that homeopathy is not just a little bit implausible, but completely off-the-scale-bonkers-in-a-'world-is-not-flat-sort-of-a-way', along with energy healing and chiropractic.
But acupuncture? I'll bet Professor Ernst's words will make for uncomfortable reading for some. That's precisely what seems to have made the Veterinary Record balk. But surely that's the whole point of science. To challenge our beliefs, even (or especially) if it makes us uncomfortable.
You can read Professor Ernst's blog at: https://edzardernst.com/
Probably the two most popular social media platforms for veterinary surgeons in the UK are Facebook (and its various veterinary groups) and VetSurgeon.org.
Facebook has the advantage that so many people use it to share photographs with family and friends, so they are already on the site and it is only a very short hop over to participate in a veterinary discussion group. That makes it an excellent way to get a broad opinion on almost any subject.
But, and it is a very big 'but', Facebook was never designed to be a platform for sharing clinical information or discussing cases. So, for example, you cannot see the professional qualifications of anyone contributing to the discussion unless they happen also to be your 'friend', so it can be hard to tell whether they have any idea what they're talking about, or are, in fact, the leading light.
There are various other aspects of Facebook that are problematic when it comes to clinical discussions, including the difficulty in referring back to useful information shared and the way in which 'me too' replies can drown out good quality information.
The survey aims to find out how much of a problem vets think these things are, whether certain groups within the profession could be better served by social media - for example those that may find it daunting asking for help in an online group, and what features vets would like VetSurgeon.org to invest in.
The survey can be completed anonymously, but if you give your name at the end, you'll be entered into a draw for a case of champagne (or equivalent).
Take part here: https://bit.ly/2lzzpy4
Please share this story amongst your colleagues!
The company is making the claim based on a £20,000 study it conducted with three dermatology specialists from three different clinics, in different parts of the country.
Trevor Hardcastle, Vet-AI’s chief data scientist said: "We have undertaken a small-scale trial of remote diagnosis of dermatology conditions by veterinary dermatology specialists in canine patients, which has resulted in almost perfect agreement. No significant evidence was found that veterinary dermatology specialists are measurably compromised in their ability to accurately diagnose common dermatology conditions by being remote from the patient."
Strangely, given the strength of the claim, its importance and Vet AI's obvious vested interest in the result, there was no other information contained within the company's press release. No mention of who the specialists were, nothing about the study design, and nothing about the basis on which the claim is made.
However, presuming the company meant Specialists not specialists, it would be very unusual if they had agreed for an announcement of this importance to be made without the evidence being reasonably robust. So it's probably worth suspending judgement until the study is published in full.
Meantime, the company also says its own research into online diagnosis amongst pet owners has shown that more than 50% of people have avoided taking their pets to the vet for cost reasons, yet more than 65% have tried online self-diagnosis. Again, Vet AI doesn't reveal how many pet owners were asked, or how they were sampled.
Vet-AI co-founder Sarah Warren said: "Things like dermatological issues are beautifully aligned to remote consultation because they’re visual so we can gain a wealth of information from images and distribution maps and easily recommend treatments.
"This needs to happen in a regulated, ethical and correct way with a view to improving animal welfare.
"The RCVS has a chance to ensure that people have access to quality vet help online in an effective way. They can do this, or they can allow them to continue accessing poor-quality advice. As a profession, it’s vital we respond to the needs of pet owners."
Andreea Maria Bacaintan was convicted by the Bucharest Court of Law in October 2017 of bribing a professor during her final year at university in order to pass an examination, a charge to which she had pleaded guilty.
Miss Bacaintan was fined and sentenced to a period of one year and four months' imprisonment, suspended for two years, with requirements for supervision and unpaid community service work. The case against Miss Bacaintan was that this conviction renders her unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
However, the Committee also heard and accepted that Miss Bacaintan had been the victim of a dishonest scheme perpetrated by members of staff at the University to extort money from students before they would let them pass the exam.
At the outset of the hearing the respondent admitted the facts as contained in the charge and that her conviction rendered her unfit to practise veterinary surgery. However, notwithstanding Miss Bacaintan’s acceptance that she was unfit, the issue of whether or not she was fit to practice remained one for the Committee’s judgement.
The Committee considered whether or not Miss Bacaintan’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct. In coming to its decision, the Committee took into account the submissions it had heard from Nicole Curtis, acting for the College, and from Miss Bacaintan, who represented herself.
Ms Curtis submitted that the nature and circumstances of the offence, which involved an element of dishonesty and which led to the conviction, were such as to render Miss Bacaintan unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon in the UK. Miss Bacaintan’s conduct was also liable to have a seriously detrimental effect on the reputation of the profession, as it undermined the examination system.
The Committee also considered the mitigating factors associated with the conviction, namely that this was a single, isolated incident and that Miss Bacaintan was clearly the victim of a dishonest scheme perpetrated by staff at the University.
Considering both the aggravating and mitigating factors, the Committee was satisfied that Miss Bacaintan’s conduct fell far below the standard expected of a Registered Veterinary Surgeon.
The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Miss Bacaintan. In doing so it took into account some of the written testimonials submitted on her behalf. The Committee was satisfied that Miss Bacaintan understood the magnitude of what she had done and was highly unlikely to repeat her dishonest behaviour.
Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Ian Green said: "This was a truly exceptional case where, whilst she had been dishonest, which the Committee in no way condoned, she had felt compelled to act in this way. The Committee was persuaded that Miss Bacaintan had herself been the victim of a corrupt system and had acted out of desperation in the final stages of her degree and with the genuine fear that if she did not “play the game” she would not graduate, thereby throwing away six years of hard work.
"It was notable that she did not succumb to the corrupt scheme until the third time of trying to pass this exam. It was clear from the evidence that she was not alone in paying up to try and pass this exam and that at least 30 and possibly many more students had done the same thing."
In such circumstances and with the significant mitigation, the Committee decided that the appropriate and proportionate sanction was to reprimand Miss Bacaintan and to warn her about her future conduct.
Based on the reported facts, what I'd like to know is why the DC even reprimanded a veterinary surgeon who was clearly being extorted herself, and what action was taken against the University staff?
Discuss here.
The Committee’s full facts and findings can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Kerrie was inspired in this by the results of her MBA dissertation, which looked at both enablers and barriers to leadership experienced by veterinary women and found that when it comes to partnership, women were much more likely to wait to be asked, rather than actively discussing the likelihood with the current practice partners.
Kerrie said: "The 29th of February was historically a time when it was acceptable for women to propose marriage. That's obviously a really outdated concept but we think it presents a great opportunity to encourage women in the profession to change their mindset and actively ask their boss if a partnership is a possibility either now or in the near future.
"It's the sort of proposal that will have a big impact on their future and we'd love to see more women take the driving seat and steer their own destiny. The message is: you don't have to wait to be asked - use the 29th as your excuse to pop the question!"
Kerrie's research also identified that enablers for female practice ownership included identifying as a leader at an early stage in a veterinary career, having parents who were business owners and being perceived to have more assertive or dominant personality traits.
However, Kerrie said: "While those are the factors that have helped women become leaders in the past, it doesn't mean our leaders of tomorrow have to meet those criteria and during my focus groups I found many women in the profession had a tremendous desire to lead, grow and inspire. We're looking within XLVets at ways we can remove barriers for women and increase access to leadership at every level, including supporting new start-up practices.
"We hope on the 29th February there will also be practice partners out there who might wonder why ‘she's never asked' and use this as an opportunity to talk about forming a lasting partnership. It's 2020 and there's no need for anyone to be shy about starting this important conversation."
When you post a job advert, or a shout for assistance on VetSurgeon Jobs, it is emailed to subscribers immediately and fed out onto other social networks. You can further extend the reach of your post by sharing it yourself and (with "Share and reward") encouraging other members of your team to do likewise.
I have taken the decision to drop the charge for advertising because it seems very clear now that we all face a very grim few months ahead, and it has never been more important that we all pull together and support each other, both personally and in business.
Of course, removing the charge for advertising for help on VetSurgeon.org and VetNurse.co.uk is not, in and of itself, going to save anyone from going under, but I hope perhaps other veterinary suppliers might follow my lead and consider dropping their prices until such time as everyone is back on their feet.
I have a number of other ideas in the pipeline, all designed to help bring the profession together and support each other, which I will announce shortly.
In the meantime, there's a forum discussion for sharing ideas to make the next few months more bearable, here: Getting through coronavirus. Do come and share your thoughts, and I will email the best ideas to all members.
And take care, everyone.
The company says it has made the test available in response to customer demand and growing evidence that in rare cases pets living with COVID-19-positive humans can be at risk of infection.
The test will be available to veterinary surgeons in North America this week and will roll out across most of the world in the coming weeks, via the company's worldwide network of laboratories.
Jay Mazelsky, President and Chief Executive Officer of Idexx Laboratories said: "We have continued to monitor the rapidly evolving public health crisis worldwide, paying special attention to the effects on pets.
"While there is currently no evidence that dogs or cats play a role in transmitting the disease to humans, it became clear offering the test was the right thing to do when we saw clinical evidence that pets—especially cats and ferrets—can in rare cases be at risk for infection. And, we heard from our customers around the globe that veterinarians needed a testing option."
Idexx recommends the test is used when three specific criteria are met:
Idexx says leading health authorities agree with the company that transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is primarily person-to-person and advise against testing asymptomatic pets. Since mid-February, the company has tested over 5,000 specimens for the virus, from cats, dogs, and horses with respiratory symptoms in 17 countries. To date, it has found no positive results, suggesting that dogs and cats living with infected people generally remain uninfected, except in rare and isolated cases.
For information about the Idexx SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) RealPCR Test for pets, visit idexx.com/covid19-pet-test.
Mr Lomax was found guilty of causing death by careless driving at Shrewsbury Crown Court in July 2019 and was subsequently sentenced to a 12-month community order, 300 hours’ unpaid work, 15-months’ driving disqualification and ordered to pay £1,000 in prosecution costs and victim surcharge of £85.
Mr Lomax declared his conviction to the RCVS in April 2020 as part of his declaration upon renewing his registration, following which the RCVS started its concerns investigation process leading to his appearance before the Disciplinary Committee last Monday.
At the outset of the hearing Mr Lomax admitted the charge against him, which was also accepted by the Committee based on its receipt of the certificate of conviction from Shrewsbury Crown Court.
The Committee then considered whether the conviction rendered Mr Lomax unfit to practise. The RCVS submitted that the nature of the conviction and the devastating consequences of Mr Lomax's conduct, which caused the death of a 64-year-old woman, rendered him unfit to practise.
The College also submitted that his conduct would be considered to have fallen far short of the standard expected of a member of the profession, that it had devastating consequences, and that the conviction would have an impact on the reputation of the profession and the public’s confidence in it.
Mr Lomax’s counsel, who represented him during the hearing, submitted that he did not accept his conduct rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon, although Mr Lomax did accept that the impact of his conduct was devastating.
Mr Lomax’s counsel submitted that there was a significant difference between his conduct and its consequences, as evidenced by the fact he was charged with careless driving rather than dangerous driving meaning that, though his standard of driving had fallen below that expected of a competent and careful driver, it did not fall far below. Nor was there a suggestion that Mr Lomax had carried out a deliberate act, was carrying out any dangerous manoeuvres or was otherwise impaired.
Dr Martin Whiting, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “There is no doubt that the consequences of Mr Lomax’s conduct were serious and tragic for the [victim’s] family.
"The Judge at the Crown Court referred to their loss in detail and it no doubt played a significant part in the sentence he passed, as reflected by his comments.
"The Committee was cognisant, however, of the different role it had to perform.
"A criminal conviction marks a breach of criminal law, whereas a finding of unfitness marks a breach of professional standards.
"When looking at the conviction, the Committee focused on the actual conduct of Mr Lomax and the concomitant level of culpability, rather than the consequences. Whilst it would be artificial, insensitive and inappropriate to ignore the consequences, the Committee was concerned with the conduct.”
He added: “The Committee did not consider that Mr Lomax’s conduct was liable to have a seriously detrimental effect on the reputation of the profession and concluded that the public, in full knowledge of the circumstances of this particular case, would not expect a finding that the conviction renders him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
"Rather, the public would recognise that whilst the consequences were appalling for the [victim’s] family, in terms of Mr Lomax’s culpability this was a momentary piece of poor driving rather than anything more blameworthy. At its height it was careless driving for three or so seconds.
"In the Committee’s view Mr Lomax’s careless behaviour fell below, but not far below, the standard expected of a veterinary surgeon and did not amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
The full findings of the Disciplinary Committee can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The programme, which will look at the achievements and contributions of people of African and Afro-Caribbean descent, will see Dr Greene being interviewed by presenter Alex Beresford alongside a number of other prominent black Britons including athlete and broadcaster Colin Jackson, publisher and author Margaret Busby, Mayor of Bristol Marvin Rees, and nurse and academic Dame Elizabeth Anionwu.
Mandisa said: “I am immensely honoured to be the first Black President of the RCVS and to use this opportunity to speak to the black community, and indeed all communities, about my love of veterinary science and the importance of the work we do in safeguarding animal health and welfare and wider public health.
"I am a great believer in the phrase ‘if you see it, you can be it’ and I hope that my various talks this month and, particularly the upcoming ITV documentary, will help people recognise that veterinary professionals can come from a diverse range of backgrounds and that, provided they have the drive and the ambition, there should be no barriers to them meeting their dreams."
Allegations were reported both in The Times, and the Veterinary Record.
In its statement, the College said: "We know that the University of Edinburgh takes any such accusations extremely seriously and that its inquiry fully and robustly investigated the claims in 2019. This inquiry found no evidence of misconduct, a decision that was later upheld after an appeal.
The College recognised the massive impact that bullying can have on anyone who has been subject to it and acknowledged that the individual accounts published in the Veterinary Record were upsetting to read. However it also drew attention to the 'huge amount of stress that can be caused by ‘trial by media’, especially when an inquiry has concluded that there were no issues to be found'.
As to the role of the RCVS Junior Vice-President, the College pointed out that this is a matter for RCVS Council, as the postholder is elected by Council.
Professor Argyle will be making a statement to Council at its next meeting on 5th November, after which Councillors will be able to ask any questions they have, and then consider the matter.
Meanwhile, the College has asked the Vet Record whether any of the people who made the anonymous testimonials would like to supply any information directly.
Mr Chaney was charged with stealing Trazadone and Metacam from the Hampstead practice he worked at, and of unlawfully possessing Trazadone and Metacam. He was also charged with unlawfully administering Butorphanol to a dog and failing to record the administration of the drug in the dogs records. He was also charged with making and deleting false entries into the clinical records of his own dog to the effect that it had been seen by a vet at the practice and that Metacam had been prescribed. The final charge was that his conduct over the false records was dishonest and misleading.
The Committee heard that Mr Chaney’s conduct in relation to the first two charges was discovered when, in July 2018, the Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs (Defra), accompanied by police officers, executed a warrant (for unrelated matters) on the property where he lived. During the course of the search, police officers found Metacam and Trazadone in Mr Chaney’s bedroom which did not seem to have a prescription and so Defra officers launched an investigation.
During the course of this investigation, a Defra investigator was also provided with a video and messages that indicated Mr Chaney had unlawfully administered Butorphanol to a Husky dog in frustration with the animal as it was being too noisy.
The Committee heard that, in November 2018, Mr Chaney accepted a police caution in relation to his possession of Trazadone and Metacam, and the unlawful administration of Butorphanol. The Committee also heard that following the police attending his property and finding the medicines, Mr Chaney went on to create false records at the practice in relation to the examination of his dog in order to justify his unlawful possession of the drugs.
The Committee found all the charges against Mr Chaney proven.
The Committee then went on to consider if the charges, taken both individually and in totality, amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional capacity.
Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee had no doubt that administering a sedative to an animal that required prescription by a veterinary surgeon and then failing to record it in the clinical record with the resultant risk to the animal’s welfare due to lack of knowledge of the administration fell far below the expected standard.
"The Committee also considered that possession of prescription only medicines by a registered veterinary nurse, without the sanction of law, having stolen the same from a practice also fell far below the expected standard.
“The Committee also considered that tampering with the clinical record for a dog, in order to create a misleading impression and in doing so dishonestly, was conduct which fell far below the expected standard.
“Taken as a whole, the Committee considered that Mr Chaney’s conduct had fallen far below the expected standard.”
The Committee therefore found him guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional capacity in relation to all seven charges.
It next went on to consider what sanction, if any, to impose taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors.
In considering the aggravating factors, the Committee took into account that Mr Chaney’s conduct had presented a risk of injury to the animal and that much of his conduct was pre-meditated. It also considered that Mr Chaney’s conduct involved a breach of trust to both the practice where he was employed and the owner of the Husky, and it was also an abuse of position in gaining access to and stealing medication. Lastly, because the charges related to two separate incidents, there was a common thread in Mr Chaney disregarding rules on veterinary medicines.
In mitigation, the Committee considered that Mr Chaney had reflected on and gained some insight into his behaviour, and acknowledged he had made admissions at the outset of the hearing, including apologising for and showing regret about aspects of his conduct.
However, the Committee did not believe he had addressed his understanding of the effect that this conduct had on the risk to animals, the standards of the profession or the maintenance of public confidence in the profession. In mitigation the Committee also considered a number of positive character references and his previous good character.
Judith Way said: “The Committee determined that it would not be sufficient in the circumstances of the case, to satisfy the public interest to suspend the Respondent’s registration. In its view this case involved a serious departure from identified professional standards. The disregard had been deliberate, in relation to ignoring legislation in respect of prescription-only medication and dishonesty in stealing medication.
"There was evidence of attitudinal issues in relation to that behaviour and insufficient evidence of the development of insight. The dishonesty in relation to the clinical record relating to dog O [his own dog] had been an attempt to conceal earlier dishonesty relating to the theft of the medication. In administering the Butorphanol to dog L [the Husky], Mr Chaney had been putting his own interests in quieting the dog ahead of the dog’s interests, which would have required checking with a veterinary surgeon as to appropriate steps.
"The Committee acknowledged that, by directing removal, there would likely be professional reputational damage to Mr Chaney and possible financial loss. However, in the view of the Committee the requirements of the public interest outweighed these factors.”
Accordingly, the Registrar of the RCVS was directed to remove Mr Chaney’s name from the Register of Veterinary Nurses.
Full details can be found here: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/
Morally injurious events are defined as experiences which violate one's moral or ethical code.
The research will consider the types of moral injuries veterinary professionals might encounter, their prevalence, the perceptions amongst professionals around how these moral injuries come about, and what support is needed when they occur.
The project is being led by psychologists Professor Neil Greenberg, Dr Dominic Murphy and Dr Victoria Williamson.
The research revolves around an online questionnaire which the researchers say should take no more than 20 minutes to complete: https://tinyurl.com/y7ue5ezw
Victoria said: “If you have experienced an upsetting event in your veterinary role, it would be really helpful if you could fill in our questionnaire which is anonymous and confidential. As part of this study, we are particularly interested in hearing about experiences that may have caused you to question the kind of person you are, or the kind of world we live in. These are things that you feel you may have done or failed to do, or things that others did or failed to do.
"We hope our results will help us to find better ways of meeting the needs of veterinarians in future so we would encourage veterinary professionals to also circulate this study to colleagues. Some participants may be invited to take part in a follow-up telephone interview; however, we would like to assure you this element of the project is completely voluntary.”
The survey will be followed by 1 hour telephone interviews with those who have indicated they are happy to be interviewed about their thoughts, feelings and beliefs since their challenging experience and how the event may have affected them.
The results of the study will be published in scientific journals and summaries will be made available for the relevant stakeholders with the aim of informing future research studies to support veterinary wellbeing, as well as clinical practice and policy.
Those who wish to find out more about the study before completing the survey can contact Victoria at: victoria.williamson@kcl.ac.uk
David, who was assisted by Dan Kenny and Kat Grzywa MsRCVS, said: “Penny presented with suspected ascites, given a large volume of peritoneal effusion. Her abdomen was very swollen and taut
“We performed a contrast-enhanced CT scan with an iodine-based contrast to help highlight the areas of the body we needed to examine and the results were startling.
“The mass was enormous. It almost completely filled the abdomen.”
CT images showed that the mass had originated in the right kidney, which had been displaced into the left side of the abdomen, and also compressed the rest of Penny’s internal organs.
There was no evidence of metastatic disease.
David added: “A right ureteronephrectomy was performed and the large cystic parts of the tumour were dissected free from the omentum, the peritoneum and the retroperitoneal vasculature.
“The surgery was really difficult because the mass was so large and heavy, and it required extra surgeons to hold and manipulate the mass, while its vasculature was dissected and ligated.
“The weight of the mass on the diaphragm also made the anaesthesia challenging but surgery went very well.
"Once the surgery was over, the weight of the mass was confirmed at nearly 5kg.
“Penny made a good recovery from the anaesthesia, her blood renal parameters remained normal throughout her recovery, and she was discharged 48 hours later. Histopathology later confirmed the mass to be renal carcinoma.”
Ms Hill and Wilfred Wong snatched the child from their foster carer when they arrived home from school on Anglesey.
Hill wrestled the child from the car and put them in a waiting vehicle while Wong held a knife to the foster carer’s throat before slashing one of the carer’s car tyres to stop them following.
Having made their escape, they then transferred the child into the hands of two other conspirators who had hired a car to take the child abroad.
The child was rescued four hours later when the hire car was stopped by police on the M1 in Northamptonshire.
A police investigation later concluded that the child had not been the victim of any abuse.
Ms Hill was sentenced at Caernarfon Crown Court to 19 years, 5 months, with a custodial term of 14 years and five months.
Ms Hill did not attend the RCVS disciplinary hearing as she was serving her prison sentence, and she was not represented.
In relation to the charges, the Committee was presented with the sentencing remarks from Ms Hill’s conviction at Mold Crown Court.
The judge said that Ms Hill had led the conspiracy to kidnap, and that it had caused the victim and the people responsible for their care “unspeakable misery and considerable harm”.
The judge also said that Ms Hill posed a significant risk of causing serious harm in the future.
Dr Hazel Bentall, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee took into account a number of aggravating features when considering the sanctions.
"In particular, the Committee considered that the conviction arose as a result of careful planning over several months and involved the use of violence.
"The Committee concluded that there were no mitigating factors apart from that Dr Hill had no previous regulatory history and that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was that Dr Hill’s removal from the Register of veterinary surgeons be maintained.”
Dr Hill has 28 days from being notified of her removal from the Register to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.
The Committee’s full findings can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Mr Doherty was convicted, with others (who were also convicted), in a conspiracy to deceive members of the public by passing off puppies that had been bred in puppy farms as being the home-bred offspring of domestic pets living in family homes.
Mr Doherty’s role was that he provided vaccinations and vaccination/health check cards which, the court found, materially contributed to the impression that the puppies had been home-bred locally and were in good health.
Mr Doherty was initially convicted of this offence, resulting in eight months’ imprisonment in April 2018.
However, he subsequently appealed the conviction, which was quashed and resulted in a retrial.
On retrial, Mr Doherty was convicted and sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 18 months, 150 hours community service and a £100 victim surcharge.
When deciding on the sanction, the Disciplinary Committee considered that a period of suspension would be sufficient to meet the public interest.
In reaching this conclusion, the Committee took into account that Mr Doherty had, as part of his original conviction, already served eight months in prison before the original conviction was quashed and replaced, on retrial, with a suspended sentence.
He had therefore already, in effect, had a period of suspension from practice, which meant that the deterrent factor in a sanction of suspension had been partially met.
In reaching its decision, the Committee also took into account the circumstances of this case and, in particular, the view of the court that Mr Doherty had been motivated solely by animal welfare concerns and not financial gain, and that it was this overriding concern that had allowed others to exploit his willingness to continue to vaccinate puppies despite their source.
There were no concerns as to Mr Doherty’s skill or dedication as a veterinary surgeon and with regard to the single issue of the appropriate vaccination of puppies and their onward sale, the Committee noted the changes that Mr Doherty had made to his practice procedures to avoid any similar problems occurring in the future.
The full decision and findings from the hearing can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The company says it is calling for the change after analysing the records of its consultations held during the pandemic and finding that there was a low antibiotic prescribing rate, treatments were effective and no harm was caused.
During the seven months that Vet-AI collected data, from the 1st April to the 31st October 2020, its vets held 21,383 veterinary video consultations, an analysis of which is the subject of a paper published in the RCVS Knowledge journal, Veterinary Evidence1.
78.1% of the consultations were for dogs and 21.9% for cats.
Of the vet-led video consultations completed, 3,541 had medicines prescribed during the consultation.
Some consultations required more than one prescription, which meant a total of 4,282 POM-V medications were prescribed.
Of those, Vet-AI says 0.87% reported a mild adverse effect.
Antibiotics were prescribed in 5.9% of all consultations, 99.3% of which was first line.
Vet AI says follow-up on prescribing was available in 67.7% of cases and 89.4% of all known treatment outcomes were complete or had an expected response to treatment.
Skin problems were the most common body system/disease category seen and prescribed for.
The remaining 17,482 consultations, which did not require a prescription medicine, had resolutions assigned.
They included 959 referrals to an emergency in-person veterinarian visit; 4,852 recommendations to visit a vet in-person; 4,216 alternative products recommended, 6,421 follow-up consultations with the remote veterinary team, and 219 remote laboratory tests.
Samantha Webster MRCVS (pictured right), from Joii Pet Care, said: “Given the clear evidence outlined in this report, we believe the future of veterinary medicine should include remote consultations with remote prescribing where appropriate and regulated.
"We invite the RCVS and other veterinary governing bodies to consider that there is a place for prescribing remotely on an ongoing basis for certain cases under certain conditions, such as a secure video and audio link with clinical record keeping and pharmacovigilance practice.
"A blanket ban is not appropriate with the advance of modern technology."
“Bold steps have been taken in human health, incorporating modern technologies to support both GPs and patients, to great success.
"Our industry could use these learnings to help reduce the current strain and demands on vets across the country where mental health is already a key issue due to increased pressures, under resourcing, and compassion fatigue.
“We feel it’s important to take this approach to reach as many owners and provide professional advice and appropriate treatment on pet health so that those animals that do not necessarily currently receive veterinary care do so, and to bridge the gap wanted by clients.”
It's believed that VetSurgeon.org and VetNurse.co.uk, which run on a platform that predates Facebook, may be the first online communities to require good manners.
Under the new policy, anyone who posts anything in the forums which is sarcastic, belittling, snide, rude or unkind towards another member will face immediate removal from the website.
This marks a very radical change to the previous policy in which members were free to say pretty much what they wanted.
VetSurgeon.org Publisher Arlo Guthrie said: "For years, I felt the right to free speech trumped all, and would rarely intervene.
"When I did, the worst anyone faced was a temporary suspension.
"As time has passed, I've realised the limitations of the written word, especially the short-form, hastily-written word, which can cause real distress.
"We all moderate our language offline, it's just a question of realising that we need a different set of standards online, to account for the lack of facial expression and immediacy of reply, and the public nature of the discussion.
Some people have questioned the new policy, and whether it will stifle proper debate.
Arlo added: "I believe not. It is perfectly possible and OK to disagree with someone, and express that disagreement forcefully, without being sarcastic.
"On the contrary, I think that allowing bad manners has a far more chilling effect on free speech, because it scares off opinions from the majority of more moderate members"
Others have asked whether this new policy is the consequence of the new partnership with Improve International, or proposed new laws surrounding social media.
Arlo said: "Again, no. It was a very personal decision I reached after years of wrestling with the problem. It was precipitated by a series of unkind posts and I just thought 'enough's enough'.
"That said, I am really excited about the prospect of working with Improve to grow the community as somewhere its members can come for high quality clinical content and authoritative opinion, which for sure would be hard to achieve if we don't have a friendly, collaborative atmosphere."
Another issue raised about zero tolerance is whether it is fair that there may be no second chance.
Arlo said: "I've tried loads of things over the years. Warnings. Red cards. Suspensions. None of them work. People just push the boundaries.
"But the moment I said 'zero tolerance', it seems people get the message and moderate themselves accordingly."
"I'm delighted. I want people to think of VetSurgeon.org as somewhere everyone can come for authoritative advice and support, confident of a friendly welcome and the highest standards of online behaviour."
The new guidance will remove the absolute requirement for veterinary surgeons to perform a physical examination before prescribing POM medicines, making it instead a matter for your professional judgement.
However, the proposed new guidance also imposes a requirement for veterinary surgeons who do NOT physically examine the animal prior to prescribing to provide a 24/7 follow-up service which includes a physical examination.
Furthermore, the new guidance will state that: "Where the veterinary surgeon is not able to provide this service [the physical exam] themselves, they should arrange for another veterinary service provider to do so. This arrangement should be made before veterinary services are offered and confirmed in writing as part of the conditions of service agreed by the client."
This requirement to provide a physical 24/7 follow-up would appear to safeguard animal welfare and protect against the risk of online-only businesses (in the UK or abroad) with lower overheads cherry-picking the job of prescribing medicines.
It should also protect against veterinary surgeons feeling pressured to prescribe inappropriately, because the new, stricter requirements will make it easier for them to decline to do so.
However, the BVA doesn't agree with the new proposals. It feels that remote prescribing should be delivered under the auspices of a Veterinary Client-Patient-Relationship (VCPR), which, according to the American Veterinary Medical Association, requires a physical examination.
BVA President Malcolm Morley, said: “The changes to ‘under care’ guidance are a watershed moment, so it’s positive to see that they have evolved in response to feedback from the profession. New technology presents exciting opportunities to enhance existing veterinary services and has benefits for practices as well as clients and their animals.
"However, BVA has been very clear that we believe remote prescribing can only be safely delivered where a vet-client-patient relationship has been established.
"This is an internationally recognised concept, and we are disappointed that the RCVS has decided not to embrace it.
“Having voted to implement these changes, it is incumbent upon the RCVS and the profession to scrutinise how they play out.
"At BVA we plan to develop advice and resources to support our members and help them comply with the new guidance and realise any benefits of remote veterinary service provision.’
“It is now vital that a timeframe for a review is quickly put in place, so any negative impacts on animal welfare or the sustainability of veterinary services can be dealt with swiftly.”
Council voted by a majority of 20 to 3 in favour of the changes, which it then decided should come into force between 1st June and 23rd December 2023, subject to a review at the next meeting.
Mrs Grecko faced two charges.
The first was that she got a nurse colleague to order griseofulvin, a prescription-only antifungal medication, knowing that it was for human use, rather than legitimate veterinary use.
It was also alleged that she then caused a student veterinary nurse to record the order in the name of another veterinary surgeon, who was not involved in the order or prescription of the medication, and falsely record that it was for Mrs Grecko’s dog.
The second charge was that she had acted dishonestly and misleadingly, as the medication was, in fact, intended for use by her husband.
At the outset of the hearing, Mrs Grecko admitted she had asked her RVN colleague to order the medication and for her SVN colleague to record that the medication was for her dog and that doing this was dishonest and misleading.
Mrs Grecko accepted that these admitted charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
She denied asking an SVN to record it under the name of another veterinary surgeon.
However, the Committee heard from two eye-witnesses who testified consistently that Mrs Grecko had told her SVN colleague to record the medication under another vet's name, and from another witness who testified that Mrs Grecko had made a similar admission.
It therefore found it proven that she had asked her SVN colleague to make a false record, that it was dishonest and misleading, and that together, the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf said: “The Committee considered that Mrs Grecko’s conduct had breached her obligations as a veterinary surgeon to respect the proper protections that were in place for the control of prescription-only medications.
"She had committed a serious abuse of her position in using the fact that she could obtain medications by virtue of her profession to circumvent the protections.
"She had been prepared to involve others in the course of the conduct.
"In addition, Mrs Grecko had been prepared to engage in an attempt to conceal her actions and falsify the clinical records in the process.
“Although it was acknowledged that Mrs Grecko may have been subject to some conflicting demands, being affected by her husband’s interests and may have felt a pressure to act, the Committee considered that she had completely failed to acknowledge and respect her overriding professional responsibilities.”
The Committee considered that the offence was a serious one, taking into account the abuse of position and pre-meditated and dishonest conduct.
The Committee also took into account previous adverse findings against Mrs Grecko from 2011, which involved misconduct of a very similar nature, which meant that they could not accept her argument that she had learnt her lesson, and also meant that, in the Committee’s judgement, she presented a significant risk of further repeated errors of judgement and dishonest conduct.
Mr Morris added: “Further, the Committee considered that members of the public would be very concerned to learn that, having once been reprimanded for her previous dishonest conduct, Mrs Grecko had repeated her behaviour.
“It [the Committee] concluded that this rendered Mrs Grecko’s disgraceful conduct in a professional respect incompatible with continued registration and no lesser sanction than removal from the Register would be sufficient to protect the wider public interest in maintaining public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper professional standards.”
Mrs Grecko now has 28 days from being informed of her removal from the Register to lodge an appeal.
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The 1CPD homepage now displays two progress bars: one to track the number of CPD hours currently achieved and recorded, and another to show how many hours have been reflected on.
Once the number of required CPD hours has been recorded and reflected on, a message appears to tell the user that they're CPD compliant.
This change will not affect existing CPD records, and all previously inputted activities and reflections will remain in the system.
Jenny Soreskog-Turp, RCVS Lead for Postgraduate Education, said: “We hope that the changes to the 1CPD platform will allow people to track their CPD more easily.
"A key element in outcomes-focused CPD includes reflecting on what you have learned as this is known to have a positive impact on both personal professionalism and patient-health outcomes.
“It should be noted that any CPD you have already undertaken for this year but have not yet reflected on will still remain in the system.
"However, in order to be compliant for 2023, you must reflect on every CPD activity completed.
"If you have completed your hours but have not reflected, this will show as non-compliant.
"In order to make those hours count, you simply need to go back and add your reflections.
"This doesn’t have to be a long and onerous task – uploading audio notes, adding an attachment, or writing a few notes stating what you learnt and how you will use this newly acquired knowledge moving forward will all suffice.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/cpd
IVC says this means its UK practices are on track to hit a group target of 5% by 2030, which follows in the footsteps of other IVC Evidensia territories such as Sweden and Norway, which have already reached figures of 4.9% and 5.9% respectively.
To achieve this progress, IVC says it has implemented a number of initiatives:
IVC says there has been a concerted efforts by its vets to become more aware of their own attitudes towards antibiotics and to educate their clients about the dangers of AMR.
One such example is Angharad Thomas, a veterinary surgeon from Fivelands Veterinary Centre in the West Midlands, who managed to reduce the amount of antibiotics prescribed in dentistry by 17.8% between 2022 and 2023:
She said: “Long dental treatments are a great time to chat to vet students, but one day, instead of quizzing them, I was trotting out my thoughts on the decision-making for the case when I reached post-operative drugs.
"Stopping here I asked: ‘What are you taught about this these days?’
"I suppose I wasn’t surprised to hear that antibiotics didn’t feature.
“It was a lightbulb moment: Why was I using post-operative antibiotics for my dental cases?
"I come from the generation of vets who were firmly taught never to give antibiotics to routine surgeries, so why was I continuing to use antibiotics in dentistry?
"All at once I felt terribly old and out-of-touch. I decided it was time for a change!”
“Given that reducing antibiotic usage is now fairly well recognised by the general public, owners have appeared very supportive.
"A day three post-operative check provides reassurance that their pet is healing and allows us an opportunity to intervene if required.”
“Being an ‘experienced’ vet can be a trade-off between textbook clinical decision-making and what we believe would work for our patients and their owners.
"Sometimes we need a paper or two to persuade us to change our ways, but here, going back to basic principles was enough for me.
“Twelve months later, after watching my cases for any mild complications and reflecting on the whether such complications could be attributed to the lack of antibiotics, I am convinced that this change has had no negative effects on my patients.”
https://ivcevidensia.co.uk/positive-pawprint
The consultation is open to veterinary surgeons, nurses, students, and the public.
One of the main - and most controversial - proposals in the consultation, which was unveiled by RCVS President Sue Patterson at BVA Live last week, is that the elected councils would be replaced by an independent merit-and-skills appointment-based system.
Sue discussed the main benefits of an appointment-based system at BVA Live:
Other proposed changes include:
The good governance proposals are part of the College’s overall legislative reform agenda in which it is seeking to replace the 1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act with new and more modern, flexible and forward-looking legislation, which would expand the regulatory remit of the College to encompass veterinary practice premises and paraprofessionals, while empowering veterinary nurses and creating a new fitness to practise system.
Sue said: “The current governance structure of the RCVS is set by the VSA and updating our governance systems is a vital prerequisite to getting new primary legislation, as the outdated and out-of-step nature of our current arrangements will be clear to see.
“Governance may not be the most exciting topic, but it is the foundation on which all other aspects of the College’s work rests.
"As a professional regulator with animal health and welfare at our heart, the RCVS has a duty to ensure that our arrangements best serve the public on whose behalf we are entrusted to regulate and uphold veterinary standards, while still maintaining veterinary input in all our decision-making processes.
“We believe these good governance proposals help us meet this mission, ensuring that we are bringing our governance in line with regulatory norms, while still recognising our unique role as a dual regulator and royal college.
"The proposals would also help us get the best talent with the right skillsets and experience to serve on RCVS Council, VN Council and our committees, drawing on both laypeople and the broad sweep of the veterinary professions.
“We acknowledge that there has been some disquiet over the fact that, under these proposals, we would no longer be holding the annual elections to either RCVS Council or VN Council.
"However, we believe that an independent, fair and skills-based appointment process would be a superior way of selecting the membership of RCVS Council and VN Council than the elections which, unfortunately, the vast majority of the veterinary professions do not currently engage in, and which risk creating the impression that the RCVS is some sort of representative organisation.
“We look forward to hearing the considered views of the professions and public regarding our good governance proposals and will carefully review the feedback we receive.”
Belinda Andrews-Jones RVN, current Chair of VN Council, added: “In many ways VN Council is ahead of the curve in terms of governance reform with a smaller number of members and two independently-appointed veterinary nurse members – of which I am one – as well as appointed lay members.
“I can personally vouch for the robust nature of the application and independent appointment process for VN Council and how it took into account what I had to offer to the role in terms of my skills, my knowledge and my experience.
“I would like to thank my fellow members of VN Council, including my elected peers, for their positive engagement with the good governance proposals and their recognition that these reforms aren’t about reducing scrutiny of the College or the amount of challenge to its decisions, but about improving outcomes for the public, their animals and the professions at large.”
The good governance recommendations have been drawn up on the basis of the Law Commission’s 2014 Report ‘Regulation of Health and Social Care Professionals’, the recommendations from which were adopted by the UK government as being the ‘regulatory norm’.
The College says any future appointment processes for RCVS Council and VN Council would also be based on the Professional Standards Authority’s appointment principles of merit, fairness, transparency and openness and having a process that inspires confidence.
The deadline for completing the consultation is Monday 22 July 2024.
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/our-consultations/ensuring-good-governance/
The College will also be presenting the proposals at a Zoom webinar called being chaired by Sue between 7pm and 8pm tomorrow evening, Tuesday 11 June 2024: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/ensuring-good-governance-tickets-920243973497