Boehringer Ingelheim has launched NexGard Combo spot-on, billed as the first and only broad-spectrum parasiticide to treat cats for fleas, ticks, ear mites, roundworms and tapeworms.

NexGard Combo is a systemic isoxazoline-based endectocide designed specifically for cats which contains esafoxolaner, eprinomectin and praziquantel.

The new product provides one month’s protection against fleas and five week's protection against the most common tick on cats, Ixodes ricinus. It also treats the roundworms, Toxocara cati and Toxascaris leonina, hookworms, tapeworms and ear mites, against the last of which Nexgard Combo provides 97.2 to 99.9% efficacy following one treatment¹.

NexGard Combo can be used in kittens from eight weeks of age and 0.8 kg in weight, making it suitable for most kittens at first vaccination. It is available in two pack sizes: small, for kittens weighing 0.8 - 2.5kg and large, for adult cats weighing 2.5 - 7.5kg. For cats weighing 7.5kg or over, an appropriate combination of applicators should be used.

Jackie Sterratt, senior brand manager at Boehringer Ingelheim, said: “We’re excited to add to the successful NexGard range and to help vets treat more cats. We know only one in two cats is treated for fleas² and cats are only wormed on average three times per year³ despite all cats being at risk of fleas and most cats requiring monthly roundworming treatment^{2, 3}, so there is a big opportunity to increase treatment rates and compliance. As the only product on the market to treat fleas, ticks, ear mites, roundworms and tapeworms, NexGard Combo offers a simple solution for cats at risk of multiple parasites."

To support the launch Boehringer has produced a marketing package which includes a kitten support pack, client leaflets, dispensing envelope and parasite risk checker.

For further information, contact your local Boehringer Ingelheim territory manager or phone 01344 746957 (UK) or 01 291 3985 (Ireland).

References

1. Tielemans E, Prullage J, Tomoko O, et al.  Efficacy of a novel topical combination of esafoxolaner, eprinomectin and praziquantel against ear mite (Otodectes cynotis) infections in cats.  Parasite 2021:28.
2. Cooper A-R. et al. (2020). Fleas infesting cats and dogs in Great Britain; spatial distribution of infestation risk and its relation to treatment. Medical and Veterinary Entomology. Doi:10.1111/mve12462.
3. McNamara J. et al. (2018). Survey of European pet owners quantifying endoparasitic infection risk and implications for deworming recommendation. Parasite Vectors;11:571.

Nottinghamshire-based veterinary surgeon Victor Daniel Pousada Garcia has been suspended from the Register for five months by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee following a conviction for harassment.

Mr Garcia had pleaded guilty of harassment at Nottingham Magistrates Court last September and was sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months. The magistrates also imposed a restraining order and ordered Mr Garcia to pay compensation and costs as well as a surcharge to fund victim services. 

The harassment conviction related to incidents between 30 September 2016 and 27 December 2016 in which Mr Garcia engaged in conduct that amounted to harassment towards a woman including sending offensive text messages, visiting her place of work, attempting to contact her through social media, going to her home address and driving past her home address.

At the outset of the disciplinary hearing Mr Garcia admitted the College's charge against him and that his conviction rendered him unfit to practise veterinary surgery.

Following cross-examination of Mr Garcia on the facts of the case and having  considered representation from his counsel, the Disciplinary Committee found that Mr Garcia’s conduct leading to conviction and the conviction itself rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.

Mehmuda Mian, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "It was a serious conviction as demonstrated by the sentence imposed and by the nature of the harassment. It brought distress on [the victim] and will have damaged the reputation of the veterinary profession. The respondent was right to accept that this was the case."

Turning to the sanction for Mr Garcia the Committee considered a number of aggravating factors in his case including the distress caused to the victim as some of the text messages could be interpreted as threats to harm; the fact that Mr Garcia had continued to contact the victim after receiving a warning from the police; the fact he visited her place of work; that there was a sexual element to some of the messages he sent to the victim; and that the pattern of behaviour was sustained over three months and only ended with his arrest. It also considered that his behaviour was contrary to the Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance’s advice on professional and appropriate use of social media.

The Committee also considered mitigating factors such as the fact that, during the period of his conduct, there was a family illness and bereavement; that he admitted the charges before the magistrates and the Committee; that ‘social ineptitude’ was a factor and that he did not recognise the rejection he received from the victim; testimonials as to his capabilities as a veterinary surgeon; and insight into his behaviour as well as taking steps to avoid its repetition. 

Ms Mian concluded: "The Committee has determined to suspend the respondent’s registration for a period of five months. This sanction reflects the seriousness of the conviction and the concerns expressed by the Committee in this determination. It will send a message to the respondent and to the profession that conduct such as this is unacceptable. It will afford an opportunity to the respondent to reflect further on his behaviour." 

Mr Garcia will have 28 days from the end of the hearing to appeal against the Committee’s decision.

The Committee’s full findings and decision  are available at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

The RCVS Disclipinary Committee has severely reprimanded and warned as to her future conduct a Brighton-based veterinary surgeon who failed to maintain a proper boundary between her professional and personal relationships with a client.

The eight charges considered at the seven-day hearing involved Marie-Louise Schlemm's treatment of Ratszy, a 16-year old Jack Russell with chronic renal failure, and her relationship with the dog's owner, Ms B, who suffers from mental illness, during May 2010. At that time, Ms Schlemm was employed by Coastway Veterinary Group in Brighton to work for its out-of-hours veterinary services, Vetcall, to which Ratszy had been referred by the PDSA. 

The College alleged that Ms Schlemm deliberately misled Ms B as to the condition and prognosis of Ratszy, removed the dog without Ms B's consent, and behaved unprofessionally and inappropriately in her dealings with Ms B. Other allegations were that that she had suggested Ms B tell the PDSA a fabricated story in order that she might see the dog again; made an offer that Ms B and Ratszy could come and stay with her at her home; required Ms B to attend a supermarket car park at 12.30am to collect Ratszy; and took money from Ms B other than for the purposes of legitimate veterinary treatment.

The Committee found both Ms Schlemm and Ms B to be truthful and honest witnesses, and that Ms B's recollection was given to the best of her ability. However, where recollections differed, it relied on contemporaneously prepared clinical records to find that Ms Schlemm did not mislead Ms B to the effect that the dog was not dying. Although recognising that Ms Schlemm's actions were misguided the Committee found that the dog was not taken without consent.

Furthermore, the Committee said in making the offer that Ms B and Ratszy might come and stay with her, Ms Schlemm was wholly misguided and had blurred the distinction between personal and professional activities. By this time, she was aware Ms B suffered from mental illness and so should have allowed the mental health services to take control of the situation. Similarly, she should not have required Ms B to meet in a car park to collect Ratszy, behaviour the Committee described as bizarre and which had compromised Ratszy's welfare.  Although the Committee gave Ms Schlemm the benefit of the doubt as to whether money taken was, in fact, to pay for alternative therapy for Ms B, she did not deal with the matter openly and it was a clear breach of trust to both Ms B and Vetcall.

In mitigation, the Committee was satisfied that Ms Schlemm now had a genuine insight into her lack of judgement in her relationship with Ms B, had reflected on the decision of the Committee and fully accepted the "utter stupidity" of her actions. She had also attended courses on teamwork and managing client relationships, and had established good working relationships in a new practice.

Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "While the Committee has accepted that Ms Schlemm was motivated by good intentions towards Ms B and Ratszy, she breached the trust of both of Ms B and Vetcall in the way in which she behaved [and] acted in a misguided way in dealing with a vulnerable client, who was suffering from mental illness. In light of the serious nature of its findings, the Committee does not consider it appropriate to take no further action. The Committee has concluded that Ms Schlemm should be severely reprimanded for her conduct and given a warning as to her future conduct [and] reminds the profession of the importance of maintaining a proper boundary between the professional and personal relationships of client and veterinary surgeon."

Cavalor has announced the launch of ArtiTec, an anti-inflammatory joint supplement for horses and ponies that have suffered a joint trauma, which the company says is proven effective in a good quality controlled trial¹.

In the trial, published in the Equine Veterinary Journal, synovitis was induced in the right intercarpal joint of 24 horses by intra‐articular injection of 0.5 ng lipopolysaccharide (LPS) of Escherichia coli. After intra‐articular challenge, the nutraceuticals resulted in significantly lower synovial fluid TP, TNCC and PGE 2 compared with placebo, leading the authors to conclude that: "The preventive administration of these nutraceuticals showed anti‐inflammatory effects in this validated synovitis model." 

Dr Maarten Oosterlinck DVM, PhD, Dipl. ECVS, one of the authors of the study, said: "Nutraceuticals are often used in the management of osteoarthritis, which is a common cause of chronic lameness in horses but their 'curative' efficacy remains controversial and the quality of the relevant studies is generally low. We set out to evaluate ArtiTec in a well-designed and controlled study. Our research shows that ArtiTec significantly decreased joint inflammation and could be useful in preventing the onset of arthritis."

Cavalor also points to a further field trial of the product by vets in Belgium which showed that it improved lameness in 74% of cases.²

ArtiTec contains glucosamine, MSM, chondroitin, hyaluronic acid, blackcurrant extract, feverfew and pineapple, turmeric root and Boswellia Serrata.

Lieselot Hamerlinck, managing partner at Cavalor said: "Joint supplements account for 34% of the equine supplement market so we know how important these products are to horse owners. Cavalor ArtiTec is the result of an extensive research and development programme and its anti-inflammatory effect has been documented in both scientific studies and a field trial. It can also be used in combination with our other joint supplements, Arti Matrix and Arti Base."

For more information, contact Zebra Products on 01352 763350.

References

1. Van de Water et al. (2017). The preventative effects of two nutraceuticals on experimentally induced acute synovitis, Equine Veterinary Journal 49 (4), 532-538.
2. Field trial of competition horses in Belgium in 2016

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended two veterinary surgeons from the Register after finding them guilty of lying to clients and the College about the circumstances of a castration procedure which led to the death of a dog.

The Committee suspended Mr Mpho Donald Lesolle and Mr Georgi Cheshmedzhiev from the Register for four and two months respectively, following surgery undertaken on Benson, a two-year-old male Labradoodle belonging to Mr and Mrs Grayson.

During the proceedings, the Committee heard that, on 6 August 2013, Mr and Mrs Grayson brought Benson to the Swinfen Veterinary Centre in Stafford, where Mr Lesolle is the practice principal and Mr Cheshmedzhiev was his assistant, for the operation which was undertaken by Mr Cheshmedzhiev. Mr Lesolle did not directly supervise the procedure telling the Committee that he was confident that his colleague could carry out the castration, having permitted him to do so on previous occasions.

The Committee heard that, after the operation, a nursing assistant, Ms Bell, had noticed that there was blood on the bedding and that Benson had a swollen scrotum. Mr Lesolle then performed a scrotal ablation on Benson, who was discharged later that day.

However, on the morning of 8 August 2013, Mrs Grayson discovered that Benson had died during the night. An independent post-mortem concluded that he had probably died of intra-abdominal bleeding which caused circulatory collapse. Mr and Mrs Grayson raised a concern with the RCVS in September 2013.

The charge against Mr Lesolle relates to his actions following the operations and during the investigation. The four parts of the charge were that he failed to be sufficiently open with Mr and Mrs Grayson on the circumstances of Benson’s surgery; that, in September 2013, he wrote to the College indicating that he had in fact performed the castration and failing to state that there had been two operations; that, on 23 January 2014, he informed Pam Mosedale, a Veterinary Investigator employed by the College, that he had carried out both procedures; and that, on the same day, he also encouraged his veterinary nursing assistant Ms Bell to be dishonest with the College’s investigators. 

Mr Lesolle, who was present at the hearing, admitted all parts of the charge against him. He told the Committee that he decided to take responsibility for Mr Cheshmedzhiev’s operation out of a desire to protect his colleague whom he regarded as vulnerable and lacking in self-confidence. He also accepted that he had encouraged Ms Bell to lie during her interview. He told the Committee that he had persisted with the deceit until 15 January 2015, when he gave a full account of what had occurred.

The three parts of the charge against Mr Cheshmedzhiev, who was not in attendance or represented at the hearing, were that in a letter to the College sent in September 2013, he indicated that he had not undertaken the castration procedure on Benson; that on 23 January 2014 he had denied carrying out the operation while being interviewed by Pam Mosedale; and that, on 19 June 2014, while being interviewed by a solicitor instructed by the College, he said that Mr Lesolle had carried out both procedures.

The Committee found the charge against Mr Lesolle amounted to serious professional misconduct, falling far short of what is expected of a professional. The Committee highlighted the protracted nature of his deceit and the fact that he encouraged another member of staff to participate in it. However, it did accept that his motivation was to protect Mr Cheshmedzhiev.

In deciding on the sanction for Mr Lesolle, the Committee considered the aggravating and mitigating factors. Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Having taken the calculated decision to deceive the College as to what had occurred, he abused his position of responsibility to obtain support for his deceit by involving a junior employee, without any proper consideration of the effect of that decision upon her. Instead he continued with the deceit until he was presented with incontrovertible evidence that he had not carried out both procedures on the dog. In the Committee’s view he showed a wilful disregard for the College’s investigatory process.”

However, in mitigation, it also accepted that he was protecting a colleague and that there was no financial gain. It also considered his personal circumstances, the fact that he is sole principal of a small mixed practice which provides his sole source of income and that the rented accommodation also provides a home for his wife and two children. Taking all factors into account, the Committee imposed a sanction upon Mr Lesolle of four months’ suspension from the Register.

In regards to Mr Cheshmedzhiev, the Committee did not find the part of his charge relating to the letter sent in September 2013 to be proven but, in respect of the other two parts of his charge, found that his conduct fell far short of what is expected of a professional. It highlighted his willing participation in the deceit over a protracted period and his failure to take responsibility for his own involvement in the operation on Benson. 

In deciding the sanction, the Committee said that the fact that Mr Cheshmedzhiev had lied to the College’s investigators on two occasions and did not admit that he had carried out the castration and apologise for his actions until February 2015, after he had returned to his native Bulgaria, was an aggravating factor.

Ian Green added: “The Committee accepts that he allowed himself to be persuaded by Mr Lesolle to provide a dishonest account of what had taken place to the College’s investigator Mrs Mosedale, and solicitor, Mr Hudson. It also accepts that he has been described by Mr Lesolle as a vulnerable person, lacking in self-confidence in his ability to practise as a veterinary surgeon in the United Kingdom.

“Nevertheless, Mr Cheshmedzhiev accepted the obligations contained in the Code of Professional Conduct when he registered as an MRCVS, which included an obligation to cooperate honestly with the College’s investigatory process. It has also noted that he has expressed a present intention not to work in or visit the United Kingdom again.”

Taking into account all factors, the Committee decided the appropriate sanction was to suspend him from the Register for two months. 

Zoetis has acquired Virtual Recall, a software business that helps veterinary practices improve their service offering and communication with pet owners.

Virtual Recall's products include vaccination, neutering, appointment and healthcheck reminders, customer feedback, telemedicine and post operation surveys, and healthcare advice communications. 

Jamie Brannan, Senior Vice President UK, Ireland and Nordics said: "This is an exciting opportunity for Zoetis to add a new solution for veterinarians with an innovative service that will support clinics in increasing their level of compliance, education and engagement at the pet owner level.

"As we expand our comprehensive offering across the continuum of care for veterinary clinics, Virtual Recall will enhance the level of pet owner services that can be offered to their pet owner customers in the UK, Australia and New Zealand.

“Our studies have shown that veterinary customers are keen to reduce administrative workload and find new ways to engage with pet owners. We believe that Virtual Recall will achieve that, helping to educate and improve pet owner compliance and adding financial benefits to the veterinary practice.”

Jamie Crittall, Co-founder, Virtual Recall said: “As a company we’ve always been restless – constantly looking at new ways and developing new technologies in which we can drive animal healthcare compliance. Zoetis’ thoroughly well-earned reputation for always putting their customers first – wanting them to thrive and be successful – combined with a commitment to enhance the lives of people and animals, is infectious. It is a very exciting new chapter for Virtual Recall and fellow co-founder Charlie Barton and I are thrilled to continue at the helm."

A Kent-based veterinary surgeon who faced allegations relating to multiple clinical failings has been removed from the Register at his own request. 

George Philippus Hauptfleisch faced three charges in relation to allegations of clinical failings surrounding three patients:

The first charge surrounded the allegations that in 2018, Mr Hauptfleisch failed to provide appropriate and adequate care to Steel, a Cane Corso Mastiff, in that he performed surgery outside of his competence, failed to offer a reasonable range of treatment options as alternatives, failed to make adequate enquiries about the possibility of a referral to a specialist, failed to obtain informed consent to the surgery, and failed to maintain adequate clinical records.

The second charge, in relation to a German Shepherd, alleged that in 2019, Mr Hauptfleisch failed to provide appropriate and adequate care when he undertook surgery which was outside of his competence and failed to undertake the surgery to an adequate standard, failed to note sufficient details to show that informed consent for the surgery had been obtained, and failed to maintain adequate clinical records.

The third charge, in relation to a Retriever, alleged that Mr Hauptfleisch failed to provide appropriate and adequate care with regards to surgery he performed when it was outside of his competence, failed to undertake the surgery to an adequate standard, failed to note sufficient details that showed informed consent had been obtained, and failed to maintain adequate clinical records.

Prior to the hearing, Mr Hauptfleisch made an application to the Committee to dispose of the matter by way of adjournment for an indefinite period, against his undertakings to request the Registrar to remove him from the Register, and never to seek restoration to the Register.

In deciding whether to grant the application, the Committee took into account a number of factors.

These included the fact that Mr Hauptfliesch had, in December 2021, returned to South Africa, after a career of over 32 years in the UK, and now resides there permanently, the fact that he has no intention of moving back to the UK, and that he had not practised as a veterinary surgeon since the day he left.

He had also removed himself from the equivalent register in South Africa and the Committee noted that the RCVS would inform the South African Veterinary Council of the outcome of these proceedings.

The Committee also noted that there were no previous disciplinary findings against him,  that Mr Hauptfleisch now spends the majority of his time undertaking charitable activities, including running a mentoring programme for young people, and, that he expressed deep regret for anything which he did or did not do which failed to protect the welfare of animals or caused upset to his clients and fellow members of the profession.

Mr Hauptfleisch also drew attention to the fact that the charges did not allege dishonesty and that the reputation of the profession would be upheld as Mr Hauptfleisch would no longer practise as a veterinary surgeon and would not return to practise.

Therefore, it would not be proportionate, nor in the public interest, for there to be a lengthy contested hearing resulting in substantial costs for both the RCVS and for Mr Hauptfleisch.

Hilary Lloyd, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Taking into account the removal from the Register and the respondent’s undertaking never to apply for restoration, in conjunction with all of the circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that allowing the application would be sufficient to uphold the public interest, confidence in the profession and the RCVS as a regulator, and protect the welfare of animals.

“As a result of all the factors set out, and taking into account the nature of the charges which relate to the alleged inadequate standard of clinical practice, the Committee decided that this is not a case in which there were wider issues relevant to the profession at large, such as those which had public policy implications and which required full consideration at a hearing.

“The Committee was satisfied that neither the public interest nor the welfare of animals demands that there be a full hearing in this case.

“Taking into account proportionality and weighing in the balance all the circumstances of the case, the interests of justice, the public interest, the need to uphold proper standards of conduct and performance, and the need to protect the welfare of animals, the Committee decided to grant the respondent’s application.”

https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/ 

Mars Petcare has created a 'chewing robot' with which to research and test canine dental products.

The robot is used to show how well potential new products or prototypes are performing when it comes to plaque removal.

Built using a scan of a real canine mouth and jaw, the 3D-printed model replicates the normal mastication action of a dog and the pressures it might exert on a dental chew. This, the company says, allows it to test the effectiveness of different product materials and shapes more rapidly and then refine its products at a much earlier stage in the research and development process.

Dr Phil McGenity, Global Pet Oral Care Technical Leader, Mars Petcare said the robot allows them to observe the effects of a dental chew much more easily than in a real dog: "Typically, it’s very difficult to look inside the mouth of a dog while it's chewing, but this robot allows us to assess products more rapidly than we’ve ever been able to in the past. It means we can continually improve the texture and materials in our products."

Mars uses the robot to compare different textures and shapes of products by analysing how much plaque is removed from the robot’s teeth.

Phil said: "We apply a plaque mimic to the surface of the teeth, so we can observe how effectively different prototypes or textures remove this mimic. We take before and after images and, using computer analysis, we can accurately determine what percentage of plaque has been removed.

"This robot has been extremely beneficial for us, to see just how visible the effects of our products, such as DentaStix Daily Oral Care, are."

Veterinary dentist John Robinson said: "One of the key benefits of the chewing robot is it allows a preliminary testing stage before you move into clinical trials. Clinical trials are lengthy and expensive, but the chewing robot means the product can be refined and improved to ensure optimum effectiveness.

"Then you can move into the full clinical trial knowing it has already had extensive texture and plaque removal analysis."

He added: "New research developments such as the chewing robot are vital to improving home dental care in dogs and giving vets the confidence to recommend dental chews to dog owners. Although brushing is regarded as the gold standard, vets need to work more closely with owners to improve homecare via the use of dental products."

Mars Petcare has produced a short report explaining each stage its product development and testing. You can download the report on the WALTHAM website: https://www.waltham.com/waltham-research/oral-health-research/oral-health-r-d/ 

The RCVS DC has directed that a Wirral-based veterinary surgeon should be removed from the Register after finding that he had treated clients badly, kept inadequate clinical records, was dishonest in dealing with the RCVS, and that animals in his care were placed at risk.

At the end of the five-day hearing, the Committee found that Ian Beveridge, of the Daryl Veterinary Centre, Heswall, was guilty of charges relating to two separate cases: one concerning a crossbred bitch named Holly, who belonged to Mr and Mrs Flanagan and was treated in February 2011; and the other, a cat called Blu, belonging to Ms Simpson and treated in March 2010.

On the morning of 23 February 2011, Holly was admitted to the Daryl Veterinary Centre in a collapsed state with a swollen abdomen. The Committee found a proper assessment should have led Mr Beveridge to perform an abdominocentesis at the practice, the results of which, in view of the practice and its facilities, would inevitably have led to Holly immediately being referred elsewhere. However, the Committee heard that Mr Beveridge simply placed her on a heat pad for observation until about midday, something it considered no reasonably competent veterinary surgeon in general practice would have done. The Committee also found that, on more than one occasion, Mr Beveridge had refused to discuss referral with Mrs Flanagan, and this amounted to failing to treat her with courtesy and respect as required by the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct 2010, which applied at that time. Holly was ultimately referred elsewhere and survived. The Committee also found the records of Holly's admission to be completely inadequate.

Blu was presented on 22 March 2010 in a collapsed state by Mr Taylor, Ms Simpson's former partner with whom the cat lived. The Committee found that Mr Taylor was told that the cat would be kept on a heat pad, that no other treatment or diagnosis was discussed, and that the possibility of euthanasia was not raised. Having been unable to contact Mr Beveridge that evening, Ms Simpson went to the practice the following morning, intending that her cat be discharged and taken elsewhere. However, the Committee found, when Mr Beveridge eventually fetched Blu, who had died, he blocked Mrs Simpson's exit from the consulting room, saying words to the effect that had she been a better owner, none of this would have happened.

Mr Beveridge also sent to the College clinical records for Blu detailing a blood sample taken at 19.00 on 22 March, and subcutaneous fluids administered during that night. The Committee found this to contain deliberately false information in order to cast a better light on his management of Blu and that he was dishonest; the document was essentially a fabrication to enhance his own interests.

In reaching its decision, the Committee said that it made allowances for the fact that Mr Beveridge operated in first-opinion practice at a basic level. Notwithstanding this, however, it found him guilty of a very serious failure of care to both patients, which gave rise to serious risks to their safety and welfare.

Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "On each occasion [Mr Beveridge] treated the owners with a lack of courtesy and respect and made the difficult and distressing circumstances in which they found themselves much worse than they need have been. The Committee takes a very serious view of his attempt to prevent Ms Simpson leaving the consulting room with Blu, and of the unjust and upsetting way in which he sought to blame her for the animal's death. He showed her no consideration at all. Likewise his refusal to contemplate referral for Holly until compelled by Mrs Flanagan to do so and his persistent refusal to engage with her about this at all was, in the Committee's view, reprehensible."

The Committee directed Mr Beveridge's name should be removed from the Register.

Suffolk-based Dr Horia Elefterescu has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for dishonesty, clinical failings and poor record keeping.

The Committee heard seven charges against Dr Elefterescu. The charges were:

1. In September 2015, in relation to a male cat called Kitty Brown, he failed to undertake an adequate examination prior to surgery and that he undertook an unnecessary laparotomy.

2. In February 2016, in relation to a male cat called Storm Page, he failed to undertake an adequate clinical examination prior to anaesthesia and made dishonest or misleading entries in the clinical records stating that he had undertaken a full clinical examination.

3. In February 2016, in relation to a male cat called Sampson Page, he failed to undertake an adequate clinical examination prior to anaesthesia and made dishonest or misleading entries to the effect that he had undertaken a full clinical examination.

4. In February 2016, in relation to Tibial Plateau Levelling Osteotomy (TPLO) surgery performed on a female Bichon Frise called Lucy Allen, he failed to undertake adequate examinations into the possibility of a cranial cruciate ligament rupture or failed to record the same; performed the TPLO surgery with insufficient clinical justification; performed the surgery inadequately; failed to take steps to rectify inadequate surgery having obtained post-operative radiographs; made dishonest/ misleading entries into clinical records; and, in a letter to the RCVS on 7 August 2016, made dishonest and misleading comments.

5. In February 2016, in relation to a male cat called Kipper Morley, he failed to take and record a sufficiently detailed history; failed to undertake an adequate clinical examination; that, having noted the possibility that Kipper might have anaemia, he failed to make arrangements for urgent investigations to be undertaken; that, having decided to administer intravenous fluids to Kipper, failed to make arrangements urgently; and failed to keep clear, accurate and detailed clinical records.

6. Between September 2015 and February 2016, he failed to keep clear, accurate clinical records in relation to seven cases.

7. In February 2016, in relation to a male cat named Chino Biggs, he failed to undertake adequate clinical examination and dishonestly made entries in the clinical records saying that he had undertaken aspects of an examination when he had not done so.

Having heard evidence from complainants, witnesses (including expert witnesses) and the respondent himself the Committee determined that the facts of all the charges were proven – with the exception of part of Charge 6 regarding his keeping inadequate clinical records in relation to a male cat called Dax Parham.

The Committee then went on to consider whether the proven charges, both individually and cumulatively, amounted to serious professional misconduct. In relation to the first and fifth charges the Committee found that, while Dr Elefterescu’s conduct fell below what was expected of a professional veterinary surgeon – they did not constitute serious professional conduct.

In relation to the parts of the second, third, fourth, sixth and seventh charges that were found proven, the Committee determined that each constituted serious professional misconduct. 

In relation to these determinations, Ian Arundale, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The respondent’s clinical failures… are very serious, amounting as they do to failures in the basics of animal care and resulting in suffering to the animal. They involve widespread breaches of the Code, including not only the obligation in relation to animal health and welfare… but also the specific obligations of the Code in relation to record keeping. 

"In addition to his clinical and record keeping failures the respondent has been found to have acted dishonestly. This dishonesty would have impacted upon professional colleagues and any owner who viewed the records. It has the potential to undermine public confidence in the profession. The respondent was also dishonest in a letter written in August 2017 to his regulator."

In considering Dr Elefterescu’s sanction, the Committee took into account a number of aggravating and mitigating factors.

Aggravating factors included actual and risk of injury to animals, dishonesty, recklessness, breach of client trust, repeated misconduct and limited insight into his failings.

In mitigation the Committee considered that, at the time of the misconduct, the respondent was new to the UK, he had language difficulties which resulted in communication problems, that he was unfamiliar with UK veterinary computer systems and procedures, that he is of good character, that he has taken steps to avoid a repetition of his misconduct and that there have been no subsequent complaints since the dates of the matters in the charges.

However, the Committee found that, in light of the seriousness of the charges found against him, the only sufficient sanction was to direct the Registrar to remove Dr Elefterescu’s name from the Register. 

Mr Arundale, commenting on the sanction, said: "The respondent’s misconduct involved very serious departures from the professional standards set out in the RCVS Code…. In particular, the unnecessary surgery (both the initial and revision) carried out on Lucy Allen constituted very serious harm to an animal. The Committee considers that the respondent’s lack of insight into his failings, and his wholly unjustified confidence in his abilities constitute an ongoing risk to animal welfare. In these circumstances, the Committee has determined that the only sanction which is appropriate and proportionate, in order to ensure the welfare of animals, the public interest and the reputation of the profession, is to direct the respondent’s removal from the Register."

Dr Elefterescu has 28 days in which he can lodge an appeal with the Privy Council regarding the Disciplinary Committee’s decision.

The RCVS has published a new waiting room poster which details what pet owners and veterinary professionals should expect from each other.

It’s very significant because it’s the first time the College has produced material for practices that highlights the responsibilities of pet owners, as well as those of veterinary surgeons and nurses. 

As such, it should be a really useful tool to support the advice given by veterinary surgeons and nurses in practice.

In other words, don’t just stick it on the wall in some hidden part of the waiting room. Display it prominently by the reception desk, and point to it when explaining why owners need to make their own arrangements to bring the animal into the practice in emergency, for example. Or why you can’t prescribe drugs when you haven’t seen the animal for 8 years. 

The idea for the poster was first mooted by Jonathan Wray MRCVS in the forum on VetSurgeon.org, after he’d seen a similar thing produced by the French regulator for veterinary practices in France. 

VetSurgeon.org decided to produce an English version with input from vets as to what they would like a UK version of the poster to say.

On reflection, however, it was always something which would carry so much more clout if it came from the regulator, so we turned the idea over to the RCVS.

To its great credit, the College ran with the idea and had the poster designed and put through its Standards Committee. The result has now been posted to all practices in the UK, with a pdf version available to download from www.rcvs.org.uk/poster. 

The RCVS is now inviting feedback about the poster at communications@rcvs.org.uk.

If you like the poster, I really do urge you drop the College a quick line at that email address and say so. Better still - and I will probably be put on the naughty step for saying this -  cc L.Lockett@rcvs.org.uk and i.holloway@rcvs.org.uk. It was they who took the idea forward and made it happen. I think they deserve a round of applause. 

Elanco Animal Health has launched Vulketan, a POM-V sterile topical gel developed to encourage the healing of equine wounds.

Vulketan contains ketanserin - a serotonin-S₂ antagonist.² Elanco says that although serotonin is more widely known as a neurotransmitter in the brain, it is also found in platelets and released during platelet aggregation where it can have negative effects on wound healing.^{4, 7}

Managing equine wounds is an everyday occurrence in equine practice¹ and can be difficult and time-consuming, with many potential complications such as infection or the development of proud flesh which could delay healing or lead to reduced functionality. Repeated dressings can be a hassle for owners, and if used inappropriately can lead to their own complications.⁵

Elanco representative Kirsty Prudon said: "Vulketan gel is easy to use and is designed to be applied to undressed wounds, although it has been demonstrated that wounds may be dressed, if required, without affecting Vulketan's efficacy^2,6.

Elanco also points to studies which it says demonstrate that Vulketan has been shown in client owned horses to be highly effective in preventing the formation of hypergranulation tissue and may facilitate the control of secondary infections.^2,3,6. In addition, owners expressed satisfaction with Vulketan in over 90% of cases.⁶

Practising equine vet Linda Belton MRCVS said: "Vulketan is easy to use, well tolerated by horses and produces an excellent end cosmetic result and return to function. With the reduction in the need for dressings and proud flesh control Vulketan has proven to be an advantageous product which owners value."

Vulketan is suitable for use in all horses including pregnant and lactating mares. It is supplied in 75 gram tubes and should be applied twice daily.

For more information, contact your Elanco territory manager call Elanco on 01256 353131.

References

• Elanco. Market Research: Vulketan Gel in horses. A survey of 153 Vets across France, Germany and UK. 2011
• Elanco. Vulketan Summary of product characteristics. Dec 2013
• Engelen M, Besche B, Lefay M-P, Hare J, Vlaminck K. Effects of ketanserin on hypergranulation tissue formation, infection, and healing of equine lower limb wounds. Can Vet J 2004; 45: 144-9
• Janssen PAJ, Janssen H, Cauwenbergh G, De Doncker P, De Beule K, Lewi P et al. Use of topical ketanserin in the treatment of skin ulcers: a double-blind study. J Am Acad Dermatol 1989; 21: 85-90
• Stashak TS, Selected factors that negatively impact healing. In: Equine Wound Management 2nd Ed. Eds. TS Stashak and CL Theoret. Wiley-Blackwell, 2008, pp. 71 - 84
• van Gulik IB,Vinke HE,Cieslicki M. Effect of ketanserin on wound healing in horses, Der Praktische Tierarzt Heft 9, S. 802 ff. 93. Jahrgang 2012
• Vlaminck K. Effects of the S2-antagonist ketanserin on wound repair in horses. Proc 1st World Congress of Veterinary Dermatology, Dijon, France. In: Advances in Veterinary Dermatology 1. Eds. C von Tscharner, REW Halliwell, Ballière Tindall, 1989 pp. 221-5.