Dr Sue Dyson, who was struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee last year for dishonesty, has had an application for restoration to the Register refused.

Dr Dyson was removed from the Register after she was found to have fabricated a letter from a fictitious Home Office Inspector in support of a paper she had submitted to a journal, explaining why conducting her research had not required a Home Office Licence.

The original Committee made its decision on the basis that her conduct was knowingly dishonest, was likely to bring the profession into disrepute and undermine public confidence in it, and, furthermore, risked undermining the Government’s system designed to promote animal welfare and research ethics.

In considering Dr Dyson’s application for restoration, the Disciplinary Committee took into account a number of factors: her acceptance of the findings of the Committee at the original hearing; the seriousness of the original findings; public protection; risks to animal welfare if she were to be allowed to practise again; the length of time off the Register; her conduct since being removed; her efforts to keep up to date in terms of knowledge, skills and developments in practice; the impact of the sanction on her; and public support for her.

The Committee found that while Dr Dyson had demonstrated some insight into her misconduct, had expressed remorse and admitted dishonesty, it was undermined by her continuing denial that she had been knowingly dishonest in her conduct, having attributed her actions to being in a dissociative state at the time.

In terms of seriousness, the Committee considered that Dr Dyson’s misconduct was at the highest end of the spectrum, having involved being dishonest with multiple people on multiple occasions, and then inventing a fictitious Home Office Inspector to continue the deceit.

The Committee also considered that public confidence in the profession and the RCVS as the regulator would be undermined were Dr Dyson to be allowed to be restored to the Register without genuinely accepting full responsibility for her actions.

In her favour, the Committee considered that there was no risk to the health and welfare of animals and that she had provided ample evidence of her efforts to keep up to date in terms of knowledge, skills and developments in practice should she be allowed to practise again.

In addition, she had made some progress, for example she was able to show some insight by the steps she had taken to avoid finding herself in such a stressful environment in the future. The Committee also considered the many positive testimonials it received from professional colleagues and clients.

Ultimately, however, the Committee decided to refuse Dr Dyson’s application.

Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee considered that public confidence in veterinary surgeons and the profession will not be maintained if a veterinary surgeon who has been found to have committed very serious acts of dishonesty refuses to genuinely accept that that is the case.

“Dr Dyson says that she accepts the original Disciplinary Committee’s finding that she acted dishonestly, but that acceptance carries little weight in light of what she said in her application and has said in her evidence to this Committee, because it involves a theoretical or objective concept of dishonesty which has no bearing upon her actual state of mind at the time of the actions in question.

“By not being truly accountable for her dishonest actions, Dr Dyson has thus far been unable to demonstrate anything other than limited insight into her disgraceful conduct.

“In such circumstances, the Committee considered there would be a real and continuing risk to the reputation of the profession and to public confidence in the profession if Dr Dyson were restored to the Register.

"Conduct of this kind is of a particularly egregious nature for a member of this profession and particularly so of one so eminent in her field and looked up to by so many.

"The Committee was of the view that if a veterinary surgeon, who has committed such serious offences and shown so little insight were nonetheless now allowed to practise, the public’s trust in the profession was liable to be seriously undermined.”

www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

The Royal Veterinary College has performed world-first surgery to correct a combination of congenital heart defects in a dog that needed a repair to its tricuspid valve and common atrium.

Lottie, an 11-month-old Labrador puppy was found to have a very loud heart murmur during a routine check before being spayed. 

An ultrasound revealed that she had several congenital defects. The two major ones were a malformation of her tricuspid valve and a very large defect of the common atrium.

Lottie was referred to the RVC’s cardiothoracic department where she underwent further ultrasound and a CT scan. The team at the RVC, which is led by Dan Brockman, Professor of Small Animal Surgery, had already performed several cutting-edge surgeries, including a world-first treatment to save the life of a dog born with a malformed tricuspid valve.

Repair of the tricuspid valve has only been performed a handful of times and has not been done at the same time as repair of a common atrium. 

Lottie’s owners decided to proceed with the operation, which was undertaken at the end of July. Lottie's heart was stopped for the procedure and her circulation maintained with a heart lung machine run by perfusionist Nigel Cross from Great Ormond Street Hospital.

Poppy Bristow, Fellow in Cardiothoracic Surgery at the RVC, said: "Altogether 10 people were involved in her operation and many more for her care before and after surgery, including veterinary specialists, veterinary nurses and veterinary specialists-in-training from surgery, cardiology, anaesthesia and emergency and critical care, as well as Lottie’s referring cardiologist and her local veterinary practice. 

"Lottie’s heart was stopped for an hour and a half, with the whole operation taking four hours. Her malformed tricuspid valve was released by cutting its abnormal attachments and artificial chords using Gore-Tex material were placed. Her single atrium was then divided into two using a large patch of Gore-Tex. Lottie has made a good recovery so far and was walking around and eating from the day after her surgery. She was discharged back to her owners after six days and has continued to thrive at home."

Professor Brockman added: "In Lottie, we had a young energetic dog with such a serious and life-limiting heart condition, that we were desperate to try and help her. The repair was complex but incorporated a combination of surgical manoeuvres that we had done before. With careful pre-operative planning and using our previous experience, we were able to design and execute the surgical treatment. It is still ‘early days’ but the initial signs suggest that Lottie is going to enjoy an excellent quality of life, following this operation and, we all hope, a normal lifespan."

Recruitment agency Recruit4Vets has published the results of two small surveys it conducted amongst veterinary surgeons and nurses to investigate typical rates of pay for permanent and locum veterinary surgeons and nurses.

251 veterinary surgeons and 124 veterinary nurses took part in the Permanent Salary Survey. 109 veterinary surgeons and 51 veterinary nurses took part in the Locum Pay Rate Survey.

The majority of respondents to the Permanent Salary Survey (69%) worked in the Midlands and south, but the survey didn't make any allowance for experience or qualifications, so it's difficult to read much into the reported figures. However, they were as follows:

The Locum Pay Rate Survey also made no allowance for experience or qualifications, but it may be that locum pay rates are less experience-sensitive than permanent salaries.

The average charge rate for locum veterinary surgeons was £210 per day, and for veterinary nurses, around £13.50 per hour. The majority of the locum respondents (69%) worked in the Midlands and south.

Interestingly, 53.5% of the locums polled said that demand for their services had increased over the year.

If you are a locum, don't forget to complete your profile on VetSurgeon.org and add your flag to the VetSurgeon Locum Map.

The Disciplinary Committee has suspended a veterinary surgeon from the register for three months, for not carrying out or arranging the euthanasia of a cat, and for dishonesty in his subsequent account of events.

At the outset of the two-day hearing, Mr Bogdanowicz admitted all the parts of the charge, which related to events occurring around 24 June 2011, whilst he was working at Best Friends Veterinary Group, Thrapston.

The Committee was asked to decide if Mr Bogdanowicz's actions amounted to serious professional misconduct and to decide upon any sanction.

Mr Bogdanowicz had been requested by the owners of Jason, a 14-year old Maine Coon cat, to undertake euthanasia, rather than further treatment following abdominal surgery.

Unknown to Jason's owners, Mr Bogdanowicz instead allowed a registered veterinary nurse to take the cat home, from where it subsequently escaped.

Mr Bogdanowicz then colluded in an attempt made by the veterinary nurse to cover up what had occurred and only told the truth when discrepancies in the nurse's story were challenged by the practice.

In mitigation, the Committee was satisfied Mr Bogdanowicz's decision not to put the cat to sleep was taken without full reflection on the consequences of the decision.

It was also satisfied that there was no evidence of injury to Jason and no payment had been sought or made for putting the cat to sleep. He had apologised to the cat's owners and was truthful to the College after the complaint was made.

Mr Bogdanowicz had an otherwise unblemished career and produced impressive testimonials from his clients as evidence of the high regard in which he was held.

However, the Committee also found that despite having had several occasions to tell his employers the truth, Mr Bogdanowicz had done so only after inconsistencies were revealed in the account of the veterinary nurse.

By not asking for the cat to be brought back for a post-operative check, Mr Bogdanovicz had also abdicated his own professional responsibilities.

Judith Webb, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "The Committee considers that it is unlikely that Mr Bogdanowicz will put himself in a similar position again. Having heard his evidence, it has formed the view that he has learnt his lesson from these proceedings.

"The Committee considers that it would perform a disservice to the community at large to direct a lengthy suspension of Mr Bogdanowicz's name from the Register."

The Committee directed that Mr Bogdanowicz's name be suspended from the Register for three months.

The RCVS is inviting vets to a focus group to look at the profession's needs for a Specialist GP status and contribute to the development of a curriculum on Friday 3rd May 2024 between 9.30am and 4.30pm at the Woburn House Conference Centre.

Dr Linda Prescott-Clements, RCVS Director of Education, said: “The overall aim of this event is to gather stakeholders' thoughts and insights on the need for GP specialty training, the potential impact and advantages to the profession as well as any potential risks.

"Those in attendance will also discuss what appropriate content for this training should be and explore potential learning environments, and prerequisites for how the training might be implemented”.

“After an introduction to the VCCP project, we will then be asking participants to consider some of the key questions around the development of this curriculum.

"This includes: establishing the overarching purpose of the training programme with reference to the needs of the workforce, the profession and veterinary care services; identifying appropriate areas of content for the training; identifying suitable learning environments; and establishing consideration of the required mechanisms of supervision and support.

“In terms of attendees, we are very keen to have a good mix of people including those working in independent veterinary practices as well as corporate environments, those working in general practice, Advanced Practitioners, Specialists and those who work in the education sector.

"The focus groups will be on interactivity, finding solutions and building engagement – we want all voices to be heard and all ideas to be shared.”

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/rcvs-veterinary-clinical-career-pathways-stakeholder-focus-group-tickets-873231397617?aff=ebdssbdestsearch

COMMENT

Given the above-inflation rise in the cost of veterinary care, leading to the Competition and Markets Review and the proposed Formal Market Investigation, is now really the moment to be adding yet another layer of training and qualification, with attendant costs which will ultimately be borne by the pet-owning public?

And where is the need for a Specialist status for general practitioners?

Isn't one of the biggest issues facing general practitioners today the referall (sic) culture which has developed in recent years, leading to the deskilling of GPs, reduced job satisfaction and increased costs for pet owners?

Isn't it now the time to call a halt to further specialisation and instead focus on cutting costs, reducing the regulatory burden, and encouraging all GPs to regain lost skills so they can all deliver first class, affordable, pragmatic care for the masses?

Just a thought.

The RCVS has produced a checklist poster for use in practice to help veterinary surgeons remember the things they need to consider when delegating work to veterinary nurses under Schedule 3.

Under Schedule 3, vets can delegate medical treatment and minor surgery (not involving entry into a body cavity) to registered veterinary nurses and student veterinary nurses under certain circumstances.

However, following an RCVS survey of the profession to gauge how well both vets and vet nurses understood the provisions of Schedule 3, the College says it was clear that both groups, but especially vets, could benefit from additional guidance and greater clarity.

Following the publication of the survey report, the RCVS Veterinary Nursing Schedule 3 Working Party made a number of recommendations, including the production of a number of case studies (available via www.rcvs.org.uk/schedule3) and a reference poster to help veterinary surgeons in making decisions on delegation in practice. 

An A3/A4 poster setting out the principles of delegation has now been prepared and will be printed and posted to all UK veterinary practice premises this autumn.

Ian Holloway, RCVS Director of Communications, who helped develop the poster with the RCVS Standards Committee and the College’s Standards & Advice Team, said: "It was clear from the survey results that we could do more to help vets and vet nurses understand and remember the principles of delegation under Schedule 3, so hopefully our six-point checklist, using the memorable mnemonic 'SUPERB', will do just that.

"If the poster can be placed in a prominent position in the practice setting, we hope it will become a handy, everyday reference tool for all veterinary professionals, and help vets remember the six questions they need to consider before delegating work to their VN colleagues. 

SUPERB stands for:

• Specific procedure – is the procedure medical treatment or minor surgery not involving entry into a body cavity?

• Under care – is the animal under your care?

• Person – can you delegate to this person?

• Experience – does the RVN/SVN feel capable, and have sufficient competence and expertise?

• Risks – have you considered the risks specific to this case?

• Be there – are you available to direct or supervise as necessary?

Only if you, as a vet, can answer 'yes' to all six questions, can you delegate the job to an RVN or SVN.

The poster will also available to download from www.rcvs.org.uk/schedule3 where further resources about delegation are available, including links to the relevant chapter of the supporting guidance to the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct and the Schedule 3 case studies.

I think anything which gives veterinary surgeons confidence to delegate more is to be warmly welcomed. But what do you think? Will this poster encourage you to delegate more, or less, or the same? Discuss here. 

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded David Henry Eccles MRCVS and warned him about his future conduct after he admitted to clinical failings relating to his treatment of a cat.

Mr Eccles had first appeared before the Disciplinary Committee in November 2018 where he admitted a number of clinical failings regarding his diagnosis of a cat, the keeping of accurate and detailed clinical records, giving the animal appropriate treatment, surgery and care, and failing to provide the cat’s owners with adequate information on the cat’s care upon discharge.

After Mr Eccles admitted the two charges against him, and the Committee found him guilty of serious professional misconduct, the Committee then postponed its decision on sanction on the condition that Mr Eccles agreed to abide by a set of undertakings in the interim. They included: the preparation of a personal development plan, the enrolment of his practice in the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme, the appointment of a veterinary mentor, the completion of additional training and CPD, and his agreement to pay any costs of complying with the undertakings, including the appointment of and work undertaken by the appointed mentor.

At the resumed hearing last week, the Committee received evidence from Mr Eccles confirming that he had complied with all the original undertakings agreed to in 2018. It also considered some further undertakings that Mr Eccles had agreed to in October 2020 when his reconvened hearing was postponed due to the coronavirus pandemic. They included: confirming his compliance with the personal development plan he had drawn up in 2019, his practice achieving the Core Standards accreditation level within the Practice Standards Scheme, continuing to meet with his veterinary mentor, and undertaking additional CPD – all of which were found to be completed.

The Committee also heard evidence from both the veterinary mentor and Mr Eccles himself. In his evidence, Mr Eccles apologised to the owners of the cat for the care he had provided, admitting that he had let them and himself down by not having sufficient knowledge to recognise the cat’s needs and to provide him with a sufficient level of care. He also confirmed he was continuing to make improvements to his practice and that he had enjoyed the process of being mentored.

Dr Martin Whiting, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “In November 2018, Mr Eccles practice had fallen significantly short of an acceptable and adequate standard. He was a sole practitioner who had drifted away from professional standards.”

“The Committee today considers that Mr Eccles has met the undertakings which he accepted in November 2018 and again in October 2020 when the resumed hearing was adjourned owing to Covid-19. It accepts the College’s analysis as to how those standards have been met. It notes that Mr Eccles’ practice has achieved accreditation in Core Standards under the Practice Standard Scheme, something which is voluntary in ordinary practice. That is an exacting scheme. He has engaged with his mentor and had indicated that he will continue to do so as the need arises in order to maintain his development.”

Dr Whiting added: “The Committee also recognises that this was a single incident in a long career. It accepts that he has shown insight into his shortcomings. He understands what went wrong and why. The Committee was impressed with Mr Eccles’ statement of apology in his oral evidence today.”

“The Committee found the language which he used in answering its questions, as to the effect compliance with the undertakings has had upon him professionally, reassuring. He said he had been rejuvenated and stimulated; he had renewed enthusiasm for the profession. The Committee commends him for exceeding the minimum requirement of the undertakings, despite the stressful context of the Covid-19 pandemic.”

In considering its sanction for the original admitted charges from November 2018, the Committee considered that a reprimand and warning as to future conduct was the most appropriate and proportionate sanction.

The full findings for the case can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

The Animal Health Trust, in collaboration with the University of Cambridge is going to conduct new research to enable the creation of a blood test to identify Flatcoated Retrievers with early stage histiocytic sarcoma.

The charity says that although histiocytic sarcoma is rare, it is an aggressive form of cancer which Flatcoated Retrievers are particularly susceptible to. 

According to the AHT, almost half of all affected Flat-coated Retrievers will have a tumour in multiple locations in the body at the time of diagnosis. The outlook for these dogs is very poor and, in most cases, means they receive a terminal diagnosis.

The new research revolves around microRNAs, abnormal levels of which are often found in tumours. In addition, different microRNAs are involved in different cancers. These cancer-specific microRNA signatures can be found within the blood of cancer patients, meaning that a tumour could potentially be diagnosed with a blood test.

To start with, the researchers say they plan to confirm if there is a specific microRNA signature that is unique to histiocytic sarcomas amongst tumours and normal tissue samples from Flatcoated Retrievers. If a signature is identified, the project will investigate if measuring the levels of these microRNAs within a Flatcoated Retriever tissue sample can be used to accurately identify a histiocytic sarcoma. If it can, additional funding will be sought for more research to identify if the microRNA signature is also detectable in the blood of affected dogs, and thence to develop a blood test. 

If it comes off, this would mean that a blood sample from a Flatcoated Retriever that was lame, or was showing non-specific clinical signs of the disease such as depression, lethargy, appetite or weight loss, could be tested for the presence of the histiocytic sarcoma-associated microRNAs.

A dog with a positive test result could then have an early MRI scan and histopathology done to confirm the diagnosis, hopefully at a stage where treatment would be more successful. 

Dr Anna Hollis, cancer researcher at the Animal Health Trust, said: "I have Flatcoated Retrievers and have lost one of them to histiocytic sarcoma - it is absolutely devastating. This research could make a significant difference, and that is a huge personal motivation for me. Histiocytic sarcoma is a particularly tricky cancer to diagnose, because the tumours are frequently located deep within or between the muscles of the upper limbs - underneath the shoulder is a common location.

"Often lame dogs are rested and given pain relief before imaging is sought. Delayed diagnosis is a potential problem with histiocytic sarcoma given its aggressive nature and ability to spread rapidly to other locations within the body. If we could identify affected dogs at an earlier stage, this may allow more successful treatment of the disease."

The research project has been funded by the Flatcoated Retriever Society (FCRS) and the FCRS Rescue, Rehousing and Welfare Scheme. The Flatcoated Retriever Breed Health Co-ordinator, Liz Branscombe, said "Sadly, there is a high incidence of this aggressive form of cancer in our beautiful breed. Early detection of the disease is key in optimising cancer treatment and prolonging survival time so the prospect of a diagnostic blood test for use in the future is exciting.'

Photo: Liz Branscombe, Dr Mike Starkey and Dr Anna Hollis of AHT and Brian Jones of FCRS Rescue, Rehousing and Welfare.

You probably know that just reading content on www.vetsurgeon.org can count towards the 10 hours of undocumented Continuing Professional Development you are allowed to undertake each year. What you may NOT know is that other activities on the site can now count towards the requirement for 35 hours (on average) of documented CPD, without restriction. Best of all, it's free!

This is largely due to the way in which the VetSurgeon community has taken off over the last six months, meaning that the increasingly lively forums now offer a valid way to share knowledge and learn from each other.

To count towards your CPD requirement, your activities on VetSurgeon must be part of a documented process of appraisal and development. In other words, you must keep a record of your activity and how it has contributed to your professional development.

By default, VetSurgeon.org keeps a record of your activity on the website, which provides an auditable trail. To view your activity, click My Account (main menu) > View My Profile > View all activity. If no activity is displayed, checked that you have activity logging enabled in the 'Display Options' under 'Edit My Profile.

Currently, there are three main VetSurgeon.org activities you can take part in which can count towards your annual CPD requirements:

Participating in forums
If you post a question on VetSurgeon.org and receive a reply, you may count the time spent posting your question and reading the answer as CPD. You should keep a note of what you learned.

If you post a reply to a question, and needed to research your answer, the time you spend researching and posting your answer also counts as CPD. So, if you are a specialist answering a question in your sleep, that doesn't count. But if the question made you think, and you need to check your facts, that does.

To count towards your CPD allowance, your forum posts must concern a subject which can reasonably be argued to advance your knowledge and proficiency as a vet (so RCVS-bashing posts won't qualify!)

Publishing content on VetSurgeon
VetSurgeon offers a number of additional opportunities to self-publish on the site, and any time spent researching and publishing qualifying content (which can reasonably be argued to advance your knowledge and proficiency as a vet) can count towards your documented CPD. For example, Practical Veterinary Tips (http://www.vetsurgeon.org/blogs/veterinary-tips/default.aspx) is a newsfeed in which members can publish clinical tips; the time you spend researching and publishing a tip would qualify.

Documented reading
Additionally, time spent reading the site where you document specifically what you have read and what you have learned can also count towards your documented CPD.

Further information about CPD requirements is available from the RCVS website: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/cpd

Mars Petcare has signed an agreement to acquire the Linnaeus Group, which owns five referral centres and 82 first-opinion practices in the UK, from the private equity firm Sovereign Capital Partners.

This is by no means Mars's first foray into practice ownership. The company has been acquiring practices in the USA since 1994 and now owns VCA, Banfield Pet Hospital, Bluepearl and Pet Partners, through which it employs around 50,000 veterinary professionals and cares for approximately 10 million animals. 

Alejandro Bernal, Vice President, Veterinary Health Group, Mars Petcare said: "Pet care has been an important part of Mars for over 80 years and Mars has a large and growing veterinary practice in the US. This strategic acquisition reaffirms our commitment both to the pet care industry and veterinary profession.

"Alongside our other veterinary businesses, Linnaeus will enable Mars Petcare to provide pets with even greater access to high-quality veterinary care. Its reputation as a leading partnership of highly-respected veterinary practices and professionals means that it is well placed to meet the increasing demand in the UK and help drive our purpose, to create a better world for pets."

Lynne Hill, Chief Executive Officer of Linnaeus and former RCVS President said: "Joining Mars Petcare will enable us to provide pets with even greater high-quality veterinary care, from wellness and prevention, through primary, emergency and specialty care."

Mars says that on completion of the deal, Linnaeus’s existing management will continue to lead the business.

MSD Animal Health - maker of Optimmune (cyclosporine) is launching a new awareness campaign designed to help dog owners identify the signs of keratoconjunctivitis sicca (KCS), aka canine dry eye, before it becomes an issue.

According to the company, canine dry eye affects 1 out of 22 dogs and the early symptoms can be easily missed by pet owners, leading to irreversible damage to a dog’s vision, and eventually resulting in blindness. 

If you want to get behind the campaign, MSD will supply your practice with a educational video and a special pair of glasses which mimic the effect of dry eye on a dog, so you can better explain the condition to clients and encourage them to book a screening appointment / Schirmer tear test if their pet is at risk. 

Middle-aged to older dogs and certain breeds such as Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, West Highland White Terrier, Shih Tzu, Cocker Spaniel, Pekingese, Yorkshire Terrier, Lhasa Apso, Pug and Bulldog are more prone to KCS. Dogs with sore eyes and/or affected by conditions such as diabetes, Cushing’s Disease and hypothyroidism may also develop canine dry eye and MSD says they should be tested.

Caroline Darouj, product manager at MSD Animal Health, said: "Certain breeds of dog suffering from pre-existing conditions are at higher risk for canine dry eye and vets should screen regularly for canine dry eye."

“If left untreated, canine Dry Eye can lead to blindness. However, if caught in time, it can be well managed with medication.”

For more information, visit www.optimmune.co.uk

Northamptonshire-based Joanna Wicksteed has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after being convicted of theft and fraud, and found to be dishonest and misleading in not declaring a police caution and an adult restorative disposal to the College.

Ms Wicksteed faced five charges.

The first charge concerned her conviction in May 2021, following a jury trial at Oxford Crown Court, for one count of theft and two counts of fraud for which she was sentenced to a two-year community order, including 150 hours of unpaid work, and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £2,800, £177.07 to Barclays Bank and £85 as a victims’ surcharge.

She admitted this charge at the outset of the RCVS Disciplinary Committee hearing.

The second charge concerned the allegation that, in October 2015, she was made subject to an ‘adult restorative disposal’ (‘ARD’) following thefts from Tesco Extra Stores.

This charge was found proven after Ms Wicksteed admitted in her evidence to the Committee that she had signed the ARD.

The third charge concerned the allegation that, in January 2018, she stole from a Debenhams department store and, in March that year, was given a formal police caution.

This charge was found proven by the Committee.

The fourth charge was that, in her annual renewal declarations made each year with the RCVS from 2016 through 2021, she had failed to declare the ARD and the caution.

However, under the Code of Professional Conduct, veterinary surgeons are not required to declare ARDs as they are not convictions, cautions or adverse findings.

Ms Wicksteed was therefore cleared of failing to declare her ARD.

Nevertheless, the Committee found that she had failed to declare her police caution in her annual renewal declarations.

The fifth charge was that in failing to make declarations upon renewing her registration, she was dishonest, misleading and had failed to take adequate steps to inform the College of the caution and the ARD.

The Committee found this charge proven in respect of the caution only and not the ARD.

The Committee then considered whether the first charge, which Ms Wicksteed admitted, rendered her unfit to practise, and whether the remaining charges that were found proven amounted to serious professional misconduct.

Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee noted that the conviction concerned three elements of dishonesty: theft and two counts of fraud.

"It involved stealing from a junior colleague at work, and the fraudulent activity – the use of the colleague’s card - was carefully planned in that, when it was used, it was in respect of items which did not cumulatively cost in excess of £30 and therefore did not require knowledge of the card holder’s PIN.

"It was used twice in the Tesco Store. Between those times, Ms Wicksteed changed her appearance by taking off her coat and waited some 20 minutes.”

She added: “The Committee accepted the College’s argument that members of the public would find it abhorrent for a member of the profession to have acted in this way – stealing from a junior colleague a card held under a Power of Attorney for her brother, and spending money using that card, deliberately keeping each transaction under the contactless limit to try to conceal the conduct.

"Honesty and integrity is one of the five key principles which must be maintained by members of the profession.”

The Committee found that this charge alone rendered Ms Wicksteed unfit to practise veterinary surgery.

The Committee also found that the proven elements of the remaining charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, both individually and cumulatively.

The Committee then considered the sanction for Ms Wicksteed.

In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee considered that there was actual harm to a vulnerable person in the case of the conviction for theft and fraud, the misconduct and dishonesty it entailed was repeated, there were elements of premeditation in the conduct, there was inadequate insight shown into her behaviour, and there was wilful disregard of the College and its processes.

In terms of mitigation, the Committee considered supportive statements and character references from professional colleagues and clients and accepted that there was no actual or potential harm to animals, that Ms Wicksteed had a hitherto unblemished career as demonstrated by the references, and that there had been a significant lapse of time since some of the elements of the charges, albeit she had not declared them.

The Committee also accepted that Ms Wicksteed had suffered from ill-health, although had not seen evidence that directly connected her health with the dishonest behaviour.

Taking into account all the factors, the Committee decided that removal from the Register was the appropriate and proportionate sanction, referencing Ms Wicksteed’s breaches in relation to: serious departure from and reckless disregard for the professional behaviours set out in the Code of Professional Conduct; causing serious harm to the public and breach of trust; persistent and concealed dishonesty; and persistent lack of insight into the seriousness of her  conduct.

www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

Uxbridge-based Daniel Doherty MRCVS has been suspended by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee from the Register for one month after being convicted of conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation.

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