Each candidate will produce a written reply to two questions of their choice, which will be included on their candidate profile webpage ahead of the start of the election.
The 14 candidates who are standing in this year’s election for the three available elected places on RCVS Council are:
The biographies and election statements for each candidate are available to read at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote24.
The three candidates with the most votes will join Council for their four-year terms at the College’s AGM in July.
The College says it will only accept one question per person and questions must be decent.
Offensive, defamatory and inaccurate questions will not be passed on to candidates.
You can email your question to: vetvote24@rcvs.org.uk
All practices are eligible to register and no FCA authorisation is needed.
Carefree Credit says it will also process applications to make practice administration hassle free.
Mike Aldred, Director at Carefree Credit, said: "With the deepening cost of living crisis, owning a pet has never been more expensive for many pet owners and having these longer terms available will really help their pets get the treatment they need."
To register your practice with Carefree Credit, email office@carefreecredit.co.uk or call 0345 313 0177.
https://www.carefreecredit.co.uk
The response offers further evidence concerning the CMA’s potential concerns, and says that voluntary measures relating to transparency of fees and ownership could be introduced before the conclusion of a market investigation.
The BVA has formed a working group to develop guidance on transparency, client choice and the value of veterinary care to support companion animal practices.
British Veterinary Association President Anna Judson, said: “We’re keen to see healthy competition and consumer choice and we recognise that some of the areas identified by the CMA would benefit from further scrutiny.
"We are already taking steps to support vet practices by developing guidance for the profession in relation to transparency of fees, transparency of ownership, prescribing and dispensing of veterinary medicines, and contextualised care.
“However, we are extremely disappointed to see the suggestion in the CMA’s report, as well as in subsequent media reporting, that veterinary professionals might prey on owners’ desire to do the best for their pets by using these circumstances as a “strategy” to promote more sophisticated or expensive treatment.
"Vets enter this high-pressure profession out of genuine care for animals and will always prioritise their health and welfare."
“We also have significant concerns about the suggestion that practices might be mandated to provide information to clients about quality or outcome-related measures.
"We do not see primary concerns about the quality of veterinary treatment and we believe such a requirement would not meaningfully support consumer choice.
"Instead, it would be extremely challenging to deliver and could significantly exacerbate many of the complex issues faced by our members, who are already under significant pressure.
There will be a panel discussion about the CMA investigation at BVA Live this year.
https://bvalive.vetshow.com
COMMENT
There are lots of good points made in this latest response to the CMA, if no more than a nod to the real issue here: which is the often eye-watering cost of modern veterinary care.
But it is hugely disappointing to see the BVA (and others) berating the CMA and the media for suggesting that vets might prey on owners' desire to do the best for their pet, rather than asking WHY people think that, and how can the profession regain trust.
That, surely, is the starting point here: for the profession to stop feeling sorry for itself, and instead think how it can change to meet the needs of its customers and dispel their perception of being taken for a ride.
The CMA investigation is a bit of a red herring: the price of veterinary care is not going to be significantly changed by displaying the prices for a few standard procedures on practice websites, with greater transparency over practice ownership or with slightly cheaper prescriptions, all of which is just tinkering.
The biggest influence on the size of the client's bill is not marketplace competition, it's the vet's recommendation.
Paul Manktelow, Chief Vet at the Blue Cross has already hit the nail square on the head when he called on the profession to practise pragmatic medicine.
The BVA now alludes to this with talk in its response of 'contextualised care' - a concept which allows practitioners to offer pragmatic medicine (aka what people can afford, rather than 'gold standard'), without the judgement that it is inherently associated with.
The benefits of 'contextualised care' are well explained by Ruth Serlin at VDS Training here.
That's great, but will it be enough?
Perhaps not, because whilst someone might be happy to walk out of the car showroom with a Dacia Sandero knowing they cannot afford a Bentley, they may be less happy to accept the Dacia level of care for their beloved pet, when they watched 'Supervet' only the night before.
If that's true, then pragmatic medicine will have to be combined with all sorts of other measures, such as reviewing and reducing the cost of regulation, questioning the value of diagnostics and changing to a less 'referall' (sic) culture.
The new product, which is for the management of any condition where eye health is supported by providing additional moisture or lubrication, is suitable for dogs, cats, horses, rabbits and other animals.
Oculeze contains glycerine (0.8%), Aloe vera, chamomile and propolis extract, the latter of which contains polyphenols which Millpledge says have been shown to support corneal health by multiple mechanisms of action including modulation of the tear film and a reduction in inflammation, apoptosis and oxidative stress1.
Millpledge says Oculeze lasts longer on the ocular surface than non-lipid lubricants2 because it evaporates more slowly3.
This prolonged action means fewer administrations, which should help client compliance.
Oculeze comes in two sizes - a 10 millilitre bottle and a pack of ten resealable 0.6 millilitre vials, suitable for short term use and travel.
The 10ml bottle includes a filter, preserving sterility for up to three months after opening.
Oculeze is available direct from Millpledge or from your usual wholesaler.
https://millpledge.com/shop/oculeze
sales@millpledge.com
References
The scheme will allow regular referrers to gift free treatment worth up to £5000 to clients in need of financial assistance
Hospital Director Nicola Bromley said: “We recognise the challenge it is for families who may need specialist care for their animal friend but are unable to find the necessary funds.
"We highly value the relationship we have with our referring vets in providing options to their clients, and we hope this scheme will empower them to give hope to those who need it most.
"We are committed to supporting our referring primary care vets through collaboration, to make the whole sector as good as it can be for every animal.”
The new scheme will be activated immediately and apply to referrals made from January 2024, meaning practices and primary care vets who already refer to Fitzpatrick Referrals can refer pro bono cases immediately.
https://www.fitzpatrickreferrals.co.uk
DISCUSSION
The new product contains astaxanthin (an anti-oxidant), fucoidan (a fucose-rich, sulfated polysaccharide) and indigo (a deodorant), which together are claimed to fight against gum infections, deodorise the mouth, and reduce the build-up of plaque and tartar.
Bob Ferguson, Commercial Lead for Accord Animal Health said: “We are excited to bring to the UK and Ireland market, Vivinicord Chews, a novel combination of natural ingredients designed to aid pet owners support their dogs’ oral health.
"Dental disease and associated infections are such a huge issue for vets and owners, we believe Vivinicord Chews can be a valuable part of the solution.
“Vivinicord Chews will only be available for owners to buy from their local veterinary practice, supporting our mission of building a sustainable partnership with our veterinary customers.”
Vivinicord comes in packs of 30 chews with a shelf life of 24 months.
For further info or stock enquiries, contact: info@accord-animalhealth.com / 01271 385 200
This new injectable fluralaner formulation is approved for the immediate and persistent killing of fleas for one year (Ctenocephalides felis and Ctenocephalides canis), from 3 days to 12 months after treatment for the ticks Ixodes ricinus, and Dermacentor reticulatus, from 4 days to 12 months after treatment for Rhipicephalus sanguineus, and from 7 days to 12 months after treatment for Ixodes hexagonus.
MSD says it will also reduce the risk of Babesia canis via transmission by Dermacentor reticulatus from day 3 after treatment for up to 12 months, and also reduces the risk of infection with Dipylidium caninum via transmission by Ctenocephalides felis for up to 12 months.
Victoria Miles, UK Companion Animal Business Unit Director, MSD Animal Health said: “Imagine not having to worry about flea and tick protection for a whole year."
Bravecto 150 mg/ml powder and solvent for suspension for injection for dogs can be administered to dogs and puppies six months of age and older.
The product is already available in France and Germany and MSD told VetSurgeon.org that stocks are expected in the UK in September, for which the company is now taking pre-orders.
Contact your MSD Account Manager for further information on pricing.
The strike follows a breakdown in negotiations for better pay and conditions earlier in the year.
Valley Vets, which is owned by VetPartners, offered a 7.27% increase to its lowest paid staff, with smaller increases for higher paid staff.
However, the BVU rejected the offer, describing it as a "derisory real terms pay cut".
A postal ballot was held and 94% of members voted for industrial action, with a 93% turnout.
The BVU says it is open to restarting negotiations in the hope that an improved offer will make the strike unnecessary.
Ms Evans was charged with causing or allowing a veterinary nurse colleague to order a prescription-only medicine from a practice supplier knowing that it was intended for human use, and made a false entry prescribing the medication on the clinical records of a cat belonging to her nurse colleague.
She was also charged with falsely recording details purporting to be the results of the blood tests on cat and then entering notes on the animal's clinical history which falsely indicated that there had been a meaningful result, and then indicating to the animal's owner that there had been a meaningful result, when in fact the tests had failed to produce any meaningful results.
The final charge was that her conduct in making the false entry for the prescription-only medication, and all elements of the second charge was dishonest and misleading.
Ms Evans admitted the first charge on the basis that she had allowed rather than caused the order to be made, all the other facts of this charge were admitted.
She admitted the second charge on the basis that she had failed to inform the cat’s owner of the test results, all the other facts of this charge were admitted.
She also admitted that elements of her conduct had been dishonest and misleading.
Having found the charges proven by Ms Evans’ admissions, the Committee considered whether her admitted actions and conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Ms Evans, through her legal counsel, accepted that the admitted charges passed the threshold for serious professional misconduct, though that question still needed to be determined independently by the Committee.
The Committee found that Dr Evans’ conduct had breached several key parts of the Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance, particularly around honesty and integrity.
It also found aggravating factors in this case, including the risk to human health by allowing the prescription-only medication to be ordered knowing it was for human use, the abuse of her professional position, the breach of client trust, the potential adverse impact on the welfare of the cat for whom she falsified the blood test records, and the potential adverse impact on the welfare of the cat for whom she had falsely recorded the prescription-only medicine.
The Committee found no mitigating factors relating to the facts.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said in relation to the first charge: “In the Committee’s view, this irresponsible approach to a prescription-only medicine risked human health, potentially compromised an animal’s welfare, since the clinical record suggested the cat had been given Fluconazole when it had not, constituted an abuse of the trust placed in her as a registered veterinary surgeon and was in breach of legal provisions designed to safeguard human health.
“Such behaviour falls far below the standard expected of a registered veterinary surgeon, undermines public confidence in the profession and would be considered deplorable by colleagues and the public alike.
"The Committee was thus satisfied that charge 1 on its own amounts to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
He added: “Acting dishonestly runs contrary to one of the most fundamental principles of the profession.
"The public need to know that they can rely on the honesty and integrity of the people to whom they entrust the care and welfare of their animals.
“Further, Dr Evans’ conduct in both incidents had the potential to undermine public confidence in the profession of veterinary surgery and bring the profession into disrepute.
"In all the circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that Dr Evans’ behaviour as reflected in charge 2 fell far short of the standard expected of a veterinary surgeon and amounted to disgraceful conduct.
“Accordingly, the Committee found proved the allegation that Dr Evans was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
Having found serious professional misconduct in relation to all charges, the Committee considered what the most appropriate and proportionate sanction would be for Ms Evans’ actions and conduct.
In doing so, it considered 137 positive references and testimonials from Dr Evans’ professional colleagues and clients, poor staff morale at the practice at the time as well as compelling, exceptional evidence relating to Dr Evans’s health at the time of the two incidents.
In mitigation, the Committee considered the fact that Dr Evans had no previous disciplinary history and had a hitherto unblemished career as a veterinary surgeon; her open and frank admissions; the circumstances of pressures at work exacerbated by Dr Evans’ desire to please everyone and not let anyone down; the fact that Dr Evans was feeling very isolated; the significant insight into her conduct and its impact; effective and targeted remediation to ensure there would be no likelihood of the conduct being repeated; genuine expressions or remorse and apology; support from her employers; and the very significant number of positive testimonials.
Summing up the Committee’s decision on sanction, Mr Morris said “In all the, somewhat exceptional, circumstances of this case, the Committee was satisfied that a reprimand and a warning not to behave in this way again, would provide adequate protection to animals, as it was satisfied Dr Evans was most unlikely to ever make such a flawed set of decisions again.
“The Committee was satisfied that Dr Evans does not represent a risk to animals going forward, indeed from the character evidence it is clear that she always puts the welfare of animals first.
"She has also shown, since this episode, that she can work under pressure and not resort to making bad decisions and thus the Committee considered the wider public interest would best be served in this case by a reprimand and a warning.
“Notwithstanding the serious nature of Dr Evans' conduct, the Committee was satisfied that a fully informed member of the public would not be shocked if Dr Evans were allowed to continue to practise.
“The decision of this Committee is, therefore, that Dr Evans be reprimanded and warned about her behaviour.
"Dr Evans should, however, be under no illusion of how serious it is to have a finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect made against her and she should not take lightly the decision of this Committee to reprimand and warn her.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
If you're in London before January 6th 2008, the Animal's War exhibition at the Imperial War Museum might be worth a visit. Sponsored by The Kennel Club and PetPartners, the family exhibition explores the remarkable role of animals in conflict from the First World War to the present day using hands-on interactives, photographs, film and sound clips, paintings, touchable sculptures, and memorabilia from the Imperial War Museum collections and private and public lenders from all over the world.
With fireworks season approaching, CEVA reminds that it's a good time to let clients know the steps they can take to minimise noise-related stress and highlight the benefits of the using D.A.P.® and Feliway®.