Up to 80 staff are being recruited for Paragon Veterinary Referrals, a new £5 million referral centre in Wakefield, Yorkshire.

Paragon is being built by the Linnaeus Group, which says the new centre will be one of the largest and best-equipped in the UK when it opens its doors early in the New Year. 

The new centre follows the Linnaeus Group's acquisition of Dewsbury-based Calder Vets last year.

Calder Vets' existing referral teams, together with two ophthalmologists from its Mirfield branch, will be transferring to Paragon. Meanwhile, Calder Vets will move to solely first-opinion work. 

Currently nearing the end of construction, the centre will have eight consulting rooms, five operating theatres, MRI and CT scanners, intensive care facilities along with an all-digital imaging department. 

A total of up to 80 staff will be employed at Paragon, including up to 18 referral vets and 32 veterinary nurses.

Specialist services will include cardiology, neurology, ophthalmology and orthopaedic and soft tissue surgery. 

Positions currently available include a diagnostic imager, internal medicine specialist, neurology specialist, oncology specialist and an ophthalmologist, as well as various nursing posts. 

Ian Monteith, managing director of Paragon, said: "We are looking for the best possible people who not only have the right skills and experience, but who will also fit into the ethos we want to create at Paragon. 

"It is a significant and exciting opportunity for motivated, high calibre people to help shape something that has a very bright future for both the industry and for their own careers. 

"Our philosophy is very much one of friendly cooperation between all members of staff, creating a pleasant, supportive and good-humoured atmosphere."

For details of the vacancies currently on offer at Paragon, visit www.paragonreferrals.co.uk/en-GB/careers

A motion to conduct a trial of remote prescribing without performing a physical examination (ie. via telemedicine), thereby redefining what it means for an animal to be "under the care" of a veterinary surgeon, was put before RCVS Council last week. I was there to hear the arguments …

The motion was introduced by Kate Richards MRCVS, Chair of the RCVS Standards committee, who explained that it'd been driven by three things, namely: the Vet Futures Initiative, the RCVS Strategic Plan signed off by Council in 2017 and the RCVS telemedicine consultation that took place earlier this year. 

The latter of these showed that 69% of vets opposed the idea of prescribing without a physical exam, which rather beggars the question why it's being discussed at all. However, as Kate explained, when asked whether certain types of products could be remotely prescribed, the answer was more equivocal: 52% of vets said "yes".

Kate also explained that over the last two years, there had been a number of good quality discussions at Standards Committee and Council, but that decision-making had been "hampered by a paucity of evidence on the opportunities, risks and benefits of telemedicine to animals and the public".

The full wording of motion was: "Council is invited to consider the recommendation of Standards Committee to conduct a limited and time-bound trial to assess the benefits and risks of allowing the remote prescription of POM-V (excluding opiates, sedatives and potentially also critically important antibiotics) where there has been no physical examination."

However, in order for the trial to take place, it would be necessary to make a temporary change to the Supporting Guidance of the Code of Professional Conduct concerning the definition of "Under his care" (Ed's note. C'mon RCVS, isn’t that a bit anachronistic? Both your CEO and your President are now "her". "Under Care" would do it.), adding the words in italics to para 4.1: "A veterinary surgeon cannot usually have an animal under his or her care if there has been no physical examination; consequently a veterinary surgeon should not treat an animal or prescribe POM-V medicines via the Internet alone, other than in circumstance where a telemedicine service is a part of the RCVS telemedicine trial".

In the best interests of animal welfare

Amanda Boag (MRCVS, Vets Now, RCVS President) then reminded everyone that: "RCVS Council needs to act in the best interest of animal welfare and the public, and whilst sustainability of veterinary services is important, it isn't our role to promote anything novel or to protect traditional models."

Really? Strikes me that the sustainability of veterinary services isn’t just "important", it's an essential part of ensuring good animal welfare. Surely, therefore, it most certainly is the role of Council to protect traditional business models or, for that matter, to promote novel methods if (and I stress "if") doing so protects or enhances animal welfare.

Don’t confuse telemedicine with remote prescribing

Jo Dyer (MRCVS, small animal locum, Devon) opened by pointing out that this is not about telemedicine per se. Telemedicine has been going on since the invention of the telephone in the late 1800s, supplemented over the last 20 years or so by photography and video sent over the internet. Telemedicine does not, in and of itself, require a change in regulation.

What this is about, she explained, is the much narrower act of remote prescribing without physically examining the animal, something which would require the profession to redefine "under his care", which in turn "makes up the foundation of what forms the relationship with the owner and the animal in order that we can safeguard the use of medicines, safeguard the animals under our care and safeguard our clients."

No evidence remote prescribing increases access to veterinary services

Jo argued that the only reason Council should be considering the prescription of medicines without a physical examination would be if it were in the interests of animal welfare. And yet, she said, there is no evidence to support this idea.

Some have suggested that it could increase access to veterinary care. However, Jo said she had been unable to find any evidence to support this idea either. Not just in the veterinary profession, but in the medical profession in the Western and the developing world.

Jo also noted that the trial proposal was to use commercial organisations which have a financial interest in a positive outcome, which would render the results biased and unreliable.

She then raised the issue of antimicrobial resistance, highlighting the use of cytology and culture sensitivity to make sure the right antibiotics are used. Remote prescribing, she said, would be a retrograde step, even if only non-critical antibiotics could be prescribed remotely.

Spawning a new class of limited service provider

Next she highlighted the impact of the trial on 24-7 cover. Under the proposal, "Those under a trial would be required to actively support clients in identifying a veterinary practice that could physically see their animal in both routine and emergency situations."

As Jo pointed out, this would by definition mean that any veterinary surgeon, not just those practising telemedicine, could set themselves up as a limited service provider and refer all cases they didn’t want to see (whether OOH or not) to a local practice. This, she argued, should only happen after a proper debate, and not be just the unintended side-effect of regulation change to allow remote prescribing.

In fact, there is evidence that this is exactly what is happening in human medicine. Only the following evening, the BBC aired Diagnosis on Demand: The Computer Will See You Now, a documentary about telemedicine and artificial intelligence in human medicine. It should be required watching for all RCVS Councillors.

The programme makers visited GP at Hand, a telemedicine business based on the Lillie Road in Fulham, London that has been formed in partnership with Babylon. Coincidentally just up the road from where I used to live, it's a pretty nondescript sort of a place, but now home to the fastest-growing GP surgery in the UK. Since late 2017, it has amassed a staggering 30,000 clients from across London, virtually none of whom will ever visit the place. The problem is that GP at Hand has skimmed away fee-paying clients from across the capital that had in effect been helping to subsidise local care elsewhere.

More information needed for such an important decision

Jo concluded by saying that a decision of this magnitude, particularly when it seems to go against the wishes of the majority of the profession, demands checks to ensure no conflicts of interest, legal advice and wider consultation with organisations such as the VMD, Defra, the BVA and its subdivisions and the VDS. Therefore, she would propose a new motion to delay the decision until more information is made available.

Chris Barker (MRCVS, small animal practice, Cumbria) was up next. He felt that the RCVS consultation was very effective and gave a good picture of what veterinary surgeons see as the risks inherent in remote prescribing. However, he felt that the analysis has been marshalled to suit an agenda and minimises the concerns of general practitioners.

Fragmentation and multiple consultants leading to a loss of responsibility

The trial, he said, will lead to fragmentation of veterinary provision and send the message to the public that it is quite OK to go to more than one vet for advice and treatment, and that will lead to confusion and the loss of individual responsibility for the veterinary care of an animal that exists today.

An inspection with no history: not a proper examination.

Chris argued that the act of prescribing demands a physical examination, but that a video consultation could only ever be an inspection. He also highlighted the importance of patient histories and argued that the immediacy of telemedicine simply doesn’t allow a practitioner to get the patient history from another vet.

Chris also argued that the profession is not structured to allow for clients to consult multiple veterinary service providers simultaneously: once a client leaves his practice, he has a duty under GDPR to expunge much of their records, and he for one didn’t much care for the idea of re-registering a client at 2:00am.

Some of the issues Chris raised may of course be solved by technology in the foreseeable future. GDPR already calls for data portability, presumably it will not be long before owners expect the same data portability for their animals' clinical histories.

Who wants clients who only ever call when telemedicine has failed?

Still, his overall point was an important one: whether or not there will be vets out there who are happy to pick up and see failed telemedicine cases at 3:00am in the morning from people who are not clients of their practice and who don’t otherwise contribute financially to the business.

90% of vets say remote prescription is high risk or inappropriate

Lastly, Chris drew attention to a question in the RCVS consultation which asked respondents what risk they thought there would be in a remote consultation when the consulting vet did not know the owner, did not know the animal and does not know the situation in which the animal is kept: "90% of responding veterinary professionals either chose it as high risk or simply not appropriate at all. I know of no better body of people than practitioners in Britain to understand the welfare and the risk to the welfare of animals."

The risk of misdiagnosis

Martin Peaty (MRCVS, equine practitioner, Wiltshire) spoke next, highlighting the risk he saw to animal welfare from misdiagnosis. He drew attention to concerns raised by the Quality Care Commission in human medicine, in particular that there is no access to the long term medical records of the patient, and the risk of misdiagnosis: "And that’s in human patients who can fluently articulate their symptoms", he said, "I think we should be much more cautious in exercising care before allowing remote diagnosis and prescription."

Martin's point seemed especially apposite in the light of an article which appeared in The Times two days later: 'NHS app 'no match for trip to the GP', in which Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard, chairwoman of the Royal College of GPs expressed concerns about online consultation systems, particularly for vulnerable groups, such as children.  

Remote prescribing demands that vets sacrifice principles

Martin also outlined the three principles which underpin current practice: physically examining the animal, considering its history and providing 24 hour care, the latter in part in case of a reaction to a prescribed medicine.

"These proposals ask us to sacrifice these principles for telemedicine businesses whilst for good reason they remain in place for other veterinary practices. I think that is hypocritical. I think it is wrong."

Not enough follow-up

Sue Paterson (MRCVS, a referral specialist who offers a dermatology telemedicine service to the profession and the public, Merseyside) jumped in next. She was unashamedly enthusiastic about the benefits of telemedicine, in particular how it allows practitioners to engage with the public and make veterinary advice more accessible, not to mention because: "I am sick to death of people coming into consults when they have been on Facebook or they’ve been on to talk to Dr Google."

However, despite her enthusiasm and despite finding that users of her service do not want antibiotics, just advice, help and reassurance from people they trust, Sue was still against the idea of remote prescription: "I don’t want to prescribe because I can't follow those cases up, because I can’t maintain the level of client care that I think is really important, so for me, I would not want to see this change to the code."

We won’t know what we missed, or the consequences of what we missed

Caroline Allen (MRCVS, charity veterinary director, London) said the biggest issue for her is that without a physical examination, she won’t ever know what she missed (the heart murmur, the goitre, the subtle muscle wastage), or for that matter, the animal welfare consequences of what she missed.

As others had done, Caroline highlighted the importance of getting a weight every time and how difficult it is for clients to measure accurately.

Lastly, she made the thought-provoking point that allowing the remote prescription of drugs without a physical examination would risk legitimising Dr Google in the eyes of the public. After all, if no veterinary physical exam is needed, surely owners can just look it up on the internet for themselves?

In defence of the RCVS

At this point in the discussion, RCVS CEO Lizzie Lockett addressed the suggestion that the whole process of investigating and voting on telemedicine was being driven by hidden agendas, something she absolutely and eloquently rejected. She explained that sure, some parties had been more engaged in the whole process than others, but emphatically denied there had been any influence. Council, she said, had asked Standards to investigate and develop a proposal, which it had done diligently. Now it is down to Council to decide whether the proposal stands or falls; the College exists to implement the decision.

RCVS Vice President, Professor Stephen May went further, saying that many present would be aware that he'd been a vocal critic of the way that a number of other regulators in modern society push things out to court for decisions, rather than taking decisions collectively and then sticking by them. "I’m really proud that we are discussing this and I’m really pleased that this is up to us how we move things forward in the interest of animal health and welfare and supporting the public in that."

The need for a more nuanced, less polarised debate

However, he said he was worried about the way the debate was being polarised into a yes or no when he felt the profession should thinking about how it should adapt to the changing circumstances, thinking about cases which are amenable to a distant relationship and in what context that is appropriate, taking into account the risks. 

Remote prescription is already happening, illegally

Melissa Donald (MRCVS, small animal practice, Scotland) questioned whether telemedicine and remote prescription is what the public wants. She said that remote prescription is already happening, illegally from abroad, and that the College needs to have a more robust response than "it’s not our problem". She therefore recommended a further period of consultation, particularly with public focus groups, and internet research to see how much remote prescription is already happening. 

Vets are professionals

Tim Walker (Lay) said he was struck by the need to assemble better evidence. He felt there needs to be more thought given to the transference of responsibility for cases between a telemedicine provider and a traditional practitioner. Tim also felt that the definition of "under his care" will almost certainly need to be rethought in the not-too-distant future, because the idea of a patient being under the care of just one practitioner is starting to look dated; in the human sphere, patients are looked after by teams of people.

Tim highlighted the approach he said is taken by the GMC, which obliges doctors to be able to demonstrate that they have done sufficient due diligence to prescribe, not that they can simply do so automatically under certain circumstances. That, he said, is what professionalism should be about.

Taking the lead

Mark Castle (Lay) said he thought that the public was looking for a choice, that technology is constantly throwing up new opportunities, and he expected that in the future more and more will be able to be done remotely, so he wanted the RCVS to take the lead in this area.

Lucy Goodwin (MRCVS, BSAVA Head of Education) was positive about the idea of conducting a time-limited, controlled trial: "We say we want evidence, so let’s go and collect it", but had a number of reservations. Not least of these was the fact that the participants in any trial would be on best behaviour, so it may not be able to extrapolate the numbers to the profession at large. Beyond that, she was also concerned that the scope of the trial should be better defined, in particular which categories of drug could be included within it. 

Vets don't want a trial of telemedicine

Mandisa Greene said that whilst she is positive about telemedicine as it had been described, and not averse to a trial, she didn’t see the point in a trial when the people who actually do the prescribing don’t want it. 

A voice in favour

Chris Tufnell (Past President) began by declaring that he consults to the Affordable Pet Care Company which is shortly to launch a telemedicine service, although he said the service would be unaffected by the decision being taken by Council. He was also at pains to stress that he hadn’t had any other fingers in this particular pie, in particular that he hadn’t been to any of the Standards Committee meetings or presented to them, or been involved in formulating the proposed trial.

Whether you agree or disagree with Chris, it was at least good to hear someone speaking in favour of the motion. Chris opened by arguing that veterinary surgeons are good at making decisions based on imperfect information: "Client histories, as we know, are of variable quality. We make decisions daily on whether we are happy with the information we get from the practice lab or whether we need to send the sample to a reference lab. When I started in practice, practice lab machines were routinely described as random number generators."

"We make decisions on a daily basis on what the limitations of our abilities are. It’s called professional judgement and what we are proposing here is actually a test of our definition of 'in our care'. We’re talking about testing the possibility of making remote prescriptions. The responsibilities around prescribing won’t change, and those responsibilities include the responsible use of antibiotics."

Chris then argued that all the motion was calling for is a trial of something that unlike, for example, deregulating advertising and practice ownership, is not going to give a slice of the consultation fee to non-vets. He also pointed out that people will always be able to highlight cases that would be completely unsuitable for remote prescribing, but that this is not about replacing the consulting room.

Filling the void

What it is about, he said, is removing barriers to care; filling the vacuum between a concerned owner, and the £60 - £100+ they’ll be charged for a consultation. It’s a vacuum that is currently filled by the 'free' (except it's not) phone advice given out by practices, by Facebook and by Dr. Google. 

He then pointed to an example from the US, where 83% of people who visited https://www.whiskerdocs.com for pet advice and thought their problem was suitable for home treatment, were in fact wrong and ended up being instructed to visit their veterinary practice. This, he said, could lead to better productivity in practice.

Could telemedicine help retention?

Telemedicine, he said, could also provide a role for people thinking of leaving practice, which is potentially an important factor at a time when retention is proving such an issue. 

Evidence-gathering, clinical freedom and professional judgement

Like others, Chris argued that the trial is about putting the RCVS at the forefront of progression in our increasingly digitised society, at a time when remote information from wearables is going to become more and more common. In summary, he said: "This trial is about an evidence-based profession looking for evidence, it’s about clinical freedom and it’s about putting professional judgement in the hands of the professionals."

A two-tier service

Lynne Hill (Past President) said her main concern is about having to redefine "under his care" and how remote prescribing via telemedicine would lead to a two-tier level of care, which she thought would be wrong.

She also highlighted that the College had debated the definition of "under his care" in relation to farm animal practice, where some farmers have multiple vets, some of which offer herd health care and nothing else. Deregulating to account for this has, she said, been responsible for the demise of farm animal practice. Quite simply there are less vets around to see animals. 

Show me the money

Lynn also noted the altruistic nature of the debate thus far, and reminded everyone that this is really about business and making money. The companies that are set up to provide telemedicine and possibly take part in the trial will not be in it for the welfare of animals, but to make money.

She also scoffed at the idea that telemedicine and remote prescribing will mean the 10% of people who do not currently have a vet are "now going to get madly involved in telemedicine." The reason they don’t have a vet at the moment, she said, is because they don’t want to pay. Telemedicine doesn’t change that. 

Lastly, as others had done, she highlighted the difference between human medicine, where patients can describe their symptoms, and veterinary medicine, where they can’t.

Leadership is about taking the right decision, not jumping on the bandwagon

"Leadership is not always about jumping on the bandwagon and going forward because something is out there. Leadership is actually about looking and deciding and making the right decision."

The disingenuous antimicrobial argument

Dave Leicester (MRCVS) was up next, arguing that it would be wrong to say that a body of professionals can be trusted to make decisions about animal welfare, but not about prescribing. He also felt it was a little disingenuous to do a lot of hand-wringing over antimicrobials when, as a profession: "We’ve managed to make a 3rd generation cephalosporin the most prescribed antibiotic in cats."

Finally, Dave made the point that in his 15-year experience working for OOH emergency service providers, they’d managed to work very successfully without access to patient medical histories.

Setting veterinary standards

Claire McLaughlin (Lay) reiterated that the role of the RCVS is to set veterinary standards, something it can’t very well do without knowing what is going on in practice, and finding out how these things work in practice. “We need to be in a process which takes us to able to set those standards. Whether the trial that is proposed is the right trial or not, we can’t just say no, it’s fine as it is because people will work within their professional competence. As Eleanor [RCVS Registrar] will tell you, they don’t work within their professional competence because they come before disciplinary committee all the time. I think we would be remiss if we didn’t start a process now or continue this process in a way that allows us to set appropriate standards.”

Colonel Neil Smith (MRCVS, Chief Veterinary Office for the Army) began by declaring that he provides telemedicine services for animals in disparate parts of the world as part of his day job, but these animals are very much under care and there is an existing relationship with patients. He is also involved with the provision of limited veterinary services for homeless people via StreetVet, a charity which has had to form relationships with practices that can cover the 125 hours per week when it is not present. 

Lowering veterinary standards

Neil explained that his "massive" concern with the proposal lies in particular with the part that says: "Given the limited nature of the service that can be provided by telemedicine alone, however, it is proposed that those under a trial would be required to actively support clients in identifying a veterinary practice that could physically see their animal in both routine and emergency situations."

This, he said, would lower veterinary standards, if all somebody providing telemedicine has to do is point people in the direction of a practice. 

For that reason, Neil said, he could not support the proposal as is, and would instead recommend that it goes back to Standards and is then brought back at the next council meeting with a clearer idea of what the trial is all about.

Accessible care

Caroline Allen then jumped in again, saying that whilst she agreed with the idea that more data is needed, she also thought that telemedicine and remote prescription is being driven by the issue of accessible care, and it is that, in fact, which needs to be investigated and understood and debated first.

The digital age

Past President Professor Stuart Reid highlighted that the veterinary students of today live their lives in the digital environment and their world will be very different from ours. The same goes for pet owners. He reiterated that as the regulator, the RCVS needs to be ahead of the game, and that if this is what the public wants, then it has to find a way of regulating it. 

Stuart finished by saying that he felt conflicted about the vote; that he had significant problems with the proposal and is not entirely sure that a trial is the right thing, but: "In the referendum we're about to have, I want to say yes but I want to see what the deal is as well." He added: "I didn't vote out by the way, in case this gets back to my employers, but I do think we have to think very carefully about throwing the baby out with the bathwater here."

Pressure to prescribe

Martin Peaty then recounted how at a Vivet Conference last year, a provider of telemedicine (which he thought was Babylon) explained that doctors on its system were retained on the basis of a post-consultation customer satisfaction survey. That, he thought, would make it difficult for practitioners not to prescribe things when they know it will affect their job. 

David Bray (Lay), said he believed the telemedicine and remote prescribing will come and it will become more common to have pets treated by multiple vets, so he was fully supportive of a trial. 

When it came to the vote ...

Guessing at which way the people who spoke might have voted, it seemed as though there were probably enough councillors with sufficient reservations about the motion, which would have given the go ahead for the trial, for it to be voted down.

That said, the overall sentiment in the room seemed to be that the discussion about the regulation of telemedicine and remote prescription needs to continue, and not get kicked into the long grass simply because of a disagreement over the proposed trial. 

At this point, Jo Dyer and others stepped in to argue that the decision to proceed with the trial should not be made until the issues raised in the debate had been addressed. There was then a lot of going backwards and forwards, discussing whether this would need a new motion, which is not allowed under Council rules, or whether the existing motion could be amended, which is allowed.

In the end, the decision was taken to hold two votes, the first being to refer the issue back to the Standards Committee which was carried by 18 to 12, with one abstention. 

The second vote was:

"Council is invited to consider the recommendation of Standards Committee to prepare and develop a proposal for a time-bound and limited trial to assess the benefits and risks of allowing the remote prescription of POM-V with appropriate stakeholder engagement and with consideration of the issues that we've discussed today and the detail on them, including 24/7 care and classes of drugs, especially antimicrobials. So we are asking for the detail on that to be worked up on the basis that it will at some time come back to Council."

The second vote was carried by 21 to 8 with 3 abstentions. 

In other words, the trial will not now go ahead unless Standards can develop a new proposal which addresses the concerns raised by Council.

VetSurgeon Conclusion

Looked at solely in terms of its impact on animal welfare, this debate seems to come down to one question, which is whether more animals will benefit from easier, cheaper access to veterinary services available via telemedicine and remote prescription than will suffer as a result of misdiagnoses and missed diagnoses that will surely be the inevitable consequence of veterinary surgeons working only from the more limited, and potentially inaccurate or even false information they will get from a video consultation.

For sure, more wearables are coming, and they will overcome some of the problems caused by the fact that animal patients cannot describe their symptoms. Doubtless someone will also invent a set of weighing scales that makes it possible for owners to do the job reliably accurately. Patient histories will surely become more portable. But these things are not with us just yet. 

In any event, it is not just about the immediate impact on the quality of care delivered to patients. The way the trial has been framed thus far takes us in the direction of a two-tier profession. What happens if more veterinary surgeons prefer, or make a better living from working from the comfort of their own home without the added responsibility that comes with providing the physical care. Who’ll do the ‘real' vetting?

If you look at the popularity of human telemedicine, the 30,000 patients who have signed up for telemedicine at the small practice in the Lillie Road in London, it seems obvious that patients want the convenience of consulting online, without having to schlep to the practice and find a parking space. It also seems self evident that if online consultations are offered at a lower price point, it will inevitably lead to more pet owners availing themselves of veterinary advice, though as Lynn Hill said, it’s unlikely to cause a mad rush whilst Dr Google is still free. 

Perhaps, though, there is another valid way to solve this conundrum. Rather than rushing headlong into a trial that could irrevocably change the very nature of the profession, how about establishing some pragmatic ground rules from the outset. For example, that unless by unanimous agreement of Council in the future, telemedicine should only be allowed as an extension of the service offered by existing bricks and mortar practices to their existing clients. 

When it comes to remote prescribing, surely the safest way to regulate it (if you’re going to allow it at all) is to do so on a drug-by-drug basis. Perhaps trial it with the endo- and ecto-parasticides for existing clients of existing practices. Find out whether the convenience of the online consultation leads to higher standards of parasite control for greater numbers of pets. If it doesn’t, then ditch it. Either way, it doesn't preclude trying another category of drug.

That’s my tuppence worth, for what it’s worth, which probably isn’t quite tuppence!

Zoetis has announced that it will continue to supply an alternative equine rotavirus vaccine under a Wholesale Dealer Import Certificate (WDIC) until normal supply of its licensed product, Equip Rotavirus, can be restored.

Ceva Animal Health has announced that it is to launch Prid Delta with grip tail; a new and updated version of its progesterone-releasing intravaginal device for use in cattle.

The company says that Prid Delta with grip tail retains the unique properties of Prid Delta, but now comes with a new and easy-to-use grip tail which makes it easier to extract from the cow.

In addition, research and development has enabled Ceva to produce a smaller applicator with a bevelled tip, making it more suitable for use in heifers. Lastly, Ceva says the applicator is more robust, leading to a reliable application and a better user experience.

Carol Atkinson from Ceva said: "Prid Delta with grip tail combines the well-liked features that already existed in Prid, higher progesterone release and the comfort that comes from the triangular shape, with a new and improved tail for easy removal of the product."

According to the company, Prid Delta with grip tail contains 12% more progesterone than a T-shaped device and its larger surface area (29% greater) results in higher progesterone levels in the cow. 

Prid Delta with grip tail will be available in wholesalers from 1^st August 2017.

In addition, there will be a webinar: Reproductive Management Strategies for High-Producing Dairy Herds, presented by Dr Paul M. Fricke, Ph.D. Professor of Dairy Science and Extension Specialist in Dairy Cattle Reproduction Department of Dairy Science, University of Wisconsin on 27th July at 1:00pm. The webinar, which is being hosted by www.thewebinarvet.com, will cover resynchronisation strategies and synchronisation strategies in heifers.

Ceva is also launching a new app to help veterinary surgeons and farmers improve farm performance and sustainability through better fertility management.

The app will be made available to Prid users only. Further information is available from your Ceva territory manager. If you are a Prid user and would like access to the new app you can also email Ceva: reprodaction-group@ceva.com.

Eurovet has launched Comfortan, the first EU-authorised methadone in the UK, available as an injectable solution for use in dogs.

Eurovet says that whilst methadone may seem an unfamiliar analgesic choice for some vets in practice, that is about to change very quickly.

Ruth Vernon Technical Services Manager at Eurovet says that prior to the launch of Comfortan, reports show that usage of methadone to manage pain in animals is much higher than previously thought: "We have become aware that many practices are using methadone routinely for orthopaedic procedures and that several specialists use it in preference to any other analgesic where rapid onset of action and profound analgesia is important. This opioid provides vets with an animal analgesic with very rapid onset of action: exerting an effect in just 10 minutes of intravenous administration and 15 minutes of intramuscular administration. Comfortan is licensed both as an analgesic and as a premed in combination with a neuroleptic drug. As a full opioid agonist, Comfortan results in very effective pain relief, particularly when used for moderate to severe pain. Comfortan provides pain relief for approximately four hours and can be re-dosed to achieve the desired level and duration of pain relief."

Ruth is anticipating high demand for Comfortan from launch: "Comfortan enables many more patients to be given methadone immediately to control their acute pain without their vets having to go through lengthy protocols involved in using products off-licence, so we think that more vets are about to become convinced of the benefits.  Comfortan is licensed for veterinary use and it offers the convenience of a 10 ml vial with a shelf life of 28 days. Those who have not used methadone before, or indeed anyone with a query about storage or monitoring, can source all the information and advice they need by contacting us at Eurovet Animal Health."

For further information contact Eurovet Animal Health on 01223 257933, e-mail: office@eurovet-ah.co.uk, or visit: http://www.eurovet-ah.co.uk/

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended a veterinary surgeon formerly practising in Southampton for failing to make animal welfare his primary concern.

At a hearing this week, adjourned from September 2010, the Disciplinary Committee heard charges against Michael Albring, formerly of VetCall practice, Bitterne, Southampton. Mr Albring was said to have failed to make a home visit to attend Bear, a Newfoundland dog belonging to Mrs Thacker, when he knew, or ought to have known, that there were clinical or welfare grounds making a home visit necessary.

The hearing was held in Mr Albring's absence; the Committee considered that, having postponed the case last year at his request, Mr Albring had had ample time to prepare his case and submit any mitigations, and sufficient opportunity to attend. Additional adjournment would further delay the matter's resolution and not be in the wider interests of justice, or public confidence in either the RCVS disciplinary system or the veterinary profession.

On the evening of 19 December 2009, Mr Albring had been the veterinary surgeon on duty at VetCall, a practice that provides the out of-hours emergency cover for several local veterinary practices, including the one where Bear was registered. When Mrs Thacker's daughter, Ms Davidson, telephoned VetCall to request a home visit as the dog had collapsed, she was told that it was against practice policy for the practice to be left unmanned so this would not be possible. This was despite a written policy which accepted and made provision for the rare occasions when a home visit would be necessary. Phoning again later, the information about practice policy was repeated and Ms Davidson directed to a local animal ambulance service, which attended.

The ambulance driver found that the dog could not be transported in the ambulance and telephoned VetCall to say a home visit was needed. This was refused by Mr Albring even, the Committee noted, when the ambulance driver offered to collect Mr Albring, drive him to Ms Davidson's home 10-15 minutes away, assist with the euthanasia, and return him to the clinic. In the interim, Ms Davidson had also sought help from a separate practice and, subsequent to Mr Albring's refusal to visit, their on-duty veterinary surgeon attended and euthanased Bear. 

The Committee found that Mr Albring's refusal to visit, once it was clear Bear could not be transported, and he knew that a home visit was necessary on welfare grounds, resulted in Bear spending longer than necessary in pain and distress. This was not a case where the pressure of work or the welfare needs of other animals prevented Mr Albring from attending, and it was also relevant that Mr Albring was specifically employed to work out of hours in an emergency clinic. Serious, too, was his failure to reply promptly to communications from the RCVS, or show insight into the seriousness of his conduct.

In mitigation, the Committee accepted that this was an isolated case, and there were no previous findings against Mr Albring.  He was in sole charge of an emergency clinic covering 15-20 practices across Southampton and Portsmouth, which would make, in some circumstances, home visits difficult.

Professor Sheila Crispin, chairing the Disciplinary Committee, said: "The Committee is concerned that the actual policy pursued by the clinic regarding domiciliary visits was different to the written one.

"In effect, a no-visits policy existed at the VetCall clinic and this must have added to the pressure under which the Respondent [Mr Albring] was working.

"The Committee is mindful that the object of sanctions is not to be punitive, but to protect animal welfare, to maintain public confidence in the profession and to maintain appropriate standards," she continued, noting that as animal welfare had knowingly been neglected and Mr Albring had demonstrated no insight, a warning or reprimand would not be enough.  "A period of suspension would be sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold standards," she said.

The Committee directed that Mr Albring's name be suspended from the RCVS Register of Veterinary Surgeons for ten months.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has found Cheshire-based Paul Stuart Thomason MRCVS not guilty of disgraceful conduct after hearing charges that he undertook a pre-purchase examination of a horse called Reba which caused him to have a potential or actual conflict of interest with the seller, about which he failed to inform the prospective buyer.

Dr Thomason initially denied both heads of charge, but on the third day of the hearing he changed his plea and admitted the charge in its entirety.

The first part of the charge related to the fact that the seller of the horse was a both a client of Dr Thomason’s practice and a personal friend of his, and he therefore had a potential and/or actual conflict of interest.

Dr Thomason did not disclose this professional and personal relationship to the prospective purchaser before the pre-purchase exam.

The prospective purchaser only discovered Dr Thomason’s relationship with the seller when reading the vetting certificate at home, and stated that, in the past, she had had a similar experience in which the horse was then found to be lame. She later found out the extent of the personal relationship, when invited to join the seller on a social media site.

The Committee found that, in this set of circumstances, Dr Thomason should not have undertaken the pre-purchase exam at all, and, at the very least, disclosed his personal and professional relationship with the vendor.

The Committee also found that although Dr Thomason did have a system in place to inform any prospective purchasers if the vendor was a client of his practice, this failed to work on this occasion and neither the practice nor Dr Thomason told the prospective buyer that the seller was a client before booking the pre-purchase exam. Dr Thomason had no similar system in place to disclose any close friendships with sellers.

Dr Thomason did not consider there was a conflict of interest as he felt confident he could carry out the pre-purchase exam impartially. In addition, it was his belief that the seller had been alerted to the conflict through a system in place at his practice, implemented to safeguard against this type of error. He stated that he in no way attempted to hide his relationship with the seller to the prospective purchaser. 

It was not alleged that Dr Thomason had acted dishonestly.

Ultimately, the Committee found Dr Thomason not guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "Whilst the Committee concluded that the respondent’s view of his obligations to disclose both the professional and personal relationships he had with the vendor was mistaken, it did not find any improper motivation on his part. It has already noted that he sought to disclose to the prospective purchaser through his system the fact that the vendor was a professional client of his.

"The Committee has weighed all these matters very carefully. It is for the client to determine whether or not to proceed with a PPE when in possession of all relevant facts in relation to any potential conflict of interest, and not for the veterinary surgeon to decide. The autonomy of the client must be respected. The Committee was firmly of the opinion that a failure to comply with the Code is very serious. However, taking into account the particulars of this case, the Committee does not consider that the actions of the respondent amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."

Four intrepid vets will shortly head off on the epic 1,189-mile cycle ride from Land’s End to John O’Groats in memory of a colleague called Kirsty who tragically took her own life.

As well as raising awareness of suicide and mental health, Maria Mylne, Mary Hall, Callum McRoberts and Kirsty's partner Chris Burn are raising money for two charities: Vetlife and The Canmore Trust.

The Canmore Trust was set up by the parents of another vet who took his own life, and works with individuals, communities, practices, workplaces, schools, colleges and universities that have been affected by suicide, as well as trying to prevent suicide.

The four vets will set off from Land’s End on September 23rd and will arrive in John O’Groats on October 18th.

On the way, they will be stopping off at Bristol, Harper Adams and Keele, Liverpool, University of Central Lancashire, Edinburgh and Glasgow vet schools to speak to students about suicide prevention.

Kirsty was a trusted and respected colleague and vet, and her death had a devastating impact on her partner and colleagues who are fundraising in her memory.

Maria said: “We want to share a message of hope that suicide is not inevitable, and just because somebody has experienced suicidal thoughts, does not mean they will feel this way forever.

"Together we can break the cycle of suicide and keep building suicide safer communities in practice.”

Chris said: “Kirsty was my rock. If you wanted something organised or something fixed, Kirsty was your woman.

"We don't want anybody else to go through the pain we have.

"We want everybody to know that no matter what your mind may tell you, the world is better with you here, in this world.”

www.justgiving.com/team/lejogawareness

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61559943272380 

https://www.instagram.com/lejog_awareness2024 

https://thecanmoretrust.co.uk

https://www.instagram.com/the_canmore_trust 

lejogawareness@gmail.com

https://www.vetlife.org.uk

RCVS Council has approved final changes to its guidance on prescribing prescription-only veterinary medicines (POM-Vs) to an animal that is ‘under care’ of a veterinary surgeon, and confirmed it will come into effect on 1st September 2023.

The main change to the guidance was from:

A veterinary surgeon who has an animal under their care should have a 24/7 facility to physically examine the animal or visit the premises in the case of production animals, farmed aquatic animals and game.

to

A veterinary surgeon who has an animal under their care must be able, on a 24/7 basis, to physically examine the animal or visit the premises in the case of production animals, equines, farmed aquatic animals and game.

Where a veterinary surgeon is not able to provide this service, they must make arrangements for another veterinary service provider to do so on their behalf, details of which must be provided to the client in writing in advance of providing veterinary services.

The new guidance elaborates on the details which must be given to clients:

Veterinary surgeons should provide clients with full details of this arrangement, including relevant telephone numbers, location details, when the service is available and the nature of service provided.

The amended guidelines maintain that the prescription of antimicrobials and controlled drugs requires a physical examination in all but exceptional circumstances, but clarify that for antimicrobials, this applies to all except production animals, farmed aquatic animals and game.

The guidance for limited service providers, such as vaccination and neutering clinics, has been amended with the requirement that if they engage the services of another provider to provide 24-hour emergency cover, this arrangement must be confirmed in writing with the client before veterinary services are offered.

Council voted unanimously for a review of the guidance to be conducted 12 months from the implementation date, with the caveat that the Standards Committee would continue to monitor any impacts on an ongoing basis.

The full details of the amendments can be found in the papers for the March 2023 RCVS Council meeting at: www.rcvs.org.uk/who-we-are/rcvs-council/council-meetings/

Linda Belton MRCVS, Chair of the RCVS Standards Committee, said: “I would like to thank all the organisations and individuals within the professions who helped provide the crucial content and context for the case study scenarios, as well as feedback to make sure they were realistic and applicable in practice.

"Thank you also to all those who have fed into the further improvements that have been made to the guidance and I would like to reassure those with concerns that the guidance is robust, we have considered how it will be enforced and we will continue to review the guidance.”

Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, added: “Ahead of it coming into force, we will also be publishing resources about the guidance, including the case studies that we are currently finalising, and some FAQs.

"We hope these will help to further explain the context behind the guidance changes, and help to counter any misunderstanding about the impact of the guidance and what it will actually mean for practising professionals on a day-to-day basis.”

For further information about the guidance and the consultation process that led to its development visit: www.rcvs.org.uk/undercare

Veterinary Nurse Kim Houghton has launched Wild Inside Adventures, an opportunity to take part in a programme which offers hands-on experience with some very exotic species whilst at the same time helping communities that normally have no access to veterinary care.

Participants travel around South Africa working on game reserves, commercial farms and in poor communities, getting experience of game capture, providing veterinary care in townships and rural areas, working in a private clinic and handling and treating large farm animals.

There are also a range of weekend activities, including kayaking, quad biking, game drives, horse riding, surfing, beach walking, bars and restaurants.

Kim said: “We’ve designed the programme so that it’s suitable for people with a wide range of experience, including veterinary and veterinary nursing students, young people considering a career in the veterinary profession and animal lovers.”

For more information, visit: wildinsideadventures.com

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded Lincolnshire-based Elizabeth Sing May Law MRCVS after hearing charges against her and Julia Louise Creese MRCVS which concerned an incident where a dog remained at their practice overnight without adequate monitoring and/or post-operative aftercare.

The charge against Ms Law was that in November 2017, having performed surgery on Kiwi, a German Shepherd/Wolfhound-cross dog, to address gastric dilation volvulus (GDV), she failed to obtain informed consent to the entirety of the surgical process and management, including post-operative aftercare.

The charge also stated that she failed to provide adequate analgesia to Kiwi before, during or after the surgery, failed to provide appropriate and adequate fluid therapy to Kiwi, failed to offer an appropriate and adequate post-operative care plan and/or post-operative transfer for Kiwi to another practice and failed to inform the owners that there would be nobody present at the practice to provide post-operative monitoring and aftercare for Kiwi for approximately seven hours during the night.

Finally the charge stated that Ms Law allowed Kiwi to remain at the practice overnight from 12:30am to 07:45am without adequate monitoring or post-operative aftercare.

Ms Law admitted some of the charges against her, including that she had failed to obtain informed consent, failed to offer an appropriate and/or adequate post-operative care plan, failed to inform the owners that there would be nobody present at the practice and allowed Kiwi to remain at the practice overnight without adequate monitoring and/or post-operative aftercare. However, she denied that she failed to provide adequate analgesia or fluid therapy to Kiwi. 

The Committee found all of the charges proved, with the exception of failing to provide adequate analgesia during the perioperative period.

Having considered the facts, the Committee then moved on to consider whether the admitted and proven charges against Ms Law amounted to serious professional misconduct, taking into account any aggravating and mitigating factors. The aggravating features were that, as a result of Ms Law’s failures in relation to analgesia and fluid therapy, there was either actual injury to Kiwi, or a risk of such injury.

In mitigation, the Committee considered that she promptly and accurately diagnosed GDV, and proceeded to perform the necessary emergency surgery. The Committee considered that the charges related to a single isolated incident and that Ms Law has had an unblemished career to date. They also noted that Ms Law had made open and frank admissions as to the majority of the charges. 

The Committee found that the conduct of Ms Law set out in the majority of the charges did not amount to serious professional misconduct. However, in the judgement of the Committee, Ms Law’s conduct in allowing Kiwi to remain at the practice overnight without adequate monitoring or post-operative aftercare did amount to serious professional misconduct. 

Jane Downes, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: "The Committee considers that the respondent (Ms Law) has insight into the serious mistake that she made in failing to ensure that Kiwi was checked or monitored overnight. The Committee has found that this was a single isolated incident, which involved a serious lapse of clinical judgement, which will probably stay in the mind of the respondent for the rest of her career.

"The respondent has been in practice for some nine years now, and apart from this incident, there is no suggestion that the respondent has fallen short of the standards expected of her on any other occasion.  The Committee does not consider that there is a risk that the respondent is likely to leave an animal overnight after major surgery again, without ensuring that it is checked during that time, and, as such, the Committee considers that there is no future risk to the welfare of animals so far as the respondent is concerned."

The Committee considered that the finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect in this case is too serious for no further action to be taken, having regard to the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct.

The Committee therefore concluded that the appropriate sanction in this case was to issue a reprimand to Ms Law, in relation to the finding of serious professional misconduct.

Jane Downes added: "The Committee considers that this sanction, coupled with the findings of fact and disgraceful conduct made against the respondent, is sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards of conduct. The Committee does not consider it necessary to issue a warning to the respondent about her future conduct, on the basis that the Committee has concluded that there is no risk of repetition."

There were three charges against Ms Creese, all pertaining to the period between July 2016 and November 2017.

The first charge was that she failed to ensure that there were adequate systems and processes in place for out-of-hours’ care for in-patients.

The second charge was that she publicised that the practice had "24 hour care provided by our vets at our practice" and/or "Care 24/7 for your pets" on its website, which suggested that staff were present at the practice 24 hours a day when they were not and as such publicity was dishonest and/or misleading.

The third charge against Ms Creese was that she failed to ensure that Kiwi's owners were informed about arrangements at the practice for out-of-hours’ care for in-patients. 

At the outset of the hearing, Ms Creese denied all the charges against her. 

After hearing evidence from relevant witnesses, the Committee considered that the practice did have in place systems and processes for out-of-hours care for in-patients and that there was no evidence of repeated or ignored failures of these systems and processes. The Committee therefore found the charges against Ms Creese not proved and all three were dismissed.

Dechra Veterinary Products has announced the launch of a smaller size vial of Anesketin, its rapid acting dissociative anaesthetic licensed for cats, dogs and horses.

Anesketin solution for injection, containing Ketamine 100 mg/ml, is indicated for induction of anaesthesia. It can also be used as a sole agent for restraint and minor surgical procedures where muscle relaxation is not required in cats. 

Anesketin was previously available in 10ml or 50ml bottles. Dechra says it has added the new 5ml vial in response to feedback from veterinary practices.

Dechra Brand Manager Craig Sankey said: "Anesketin is one of our most popular products in our range due to its versatility. It can be used in combination with appropriate sedatives and analgesics in cats, dogs and horses for induction of anaesthesia.

"5ml Anesketin will help practices comply with controlled drug legislation, saving time and effort in denaturing out of date stock and reducing wastage."

He added: "The introduction of the smaller bottle demonstrates our commitment to responding to the requirements of veterinary professionals and providing a range of high quality products that provide the most effective solution within day-to-day practice."

Support tools are available for customers to order online at www.dechra.co.uk, including an Anesketin controlled drug register.  

Hampshire-based Roman Villar MRCVS has been found not guilty of serious professional misconduct by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee, during a hearing into four charges which related to his involvement in the sale of a horse.

The first charge was that in April 2016, having examined a horse named Alfie on behalf of his owner, Mr Villar gave an opinion to the potential buyers but failed to make it clear that he had not undertaken a pre-purchase examination; failed to declare to the buyer that he had a conflict of interest with regard to the owner; and, failed to explain the pre-purchase examination process to the buyers.

The second charge was that, in July 2016, during a telephone conversation with the buyer, Mr Villar was dishonest and failed to provide clear and accurate information because he told the buyers that he had only been asked to trot Alfie to check he was sound when he had, in fact, carried out a more substantial examination.

The third charge was that Mr Villar had offered to either the owner or the buyer, or both, that he would prepare a veterinary insurance certificate in relation to Alfie when he knew he did not have sufficient records (eg the microchip or passport number) to do so.

The fourth charge was that Mr Villar failed to respond adequately to communications from the buyers about Alfie.

The Committee found that Mr Villar had not in fact carried out a pre purchase examination (“PPE”) and referred to guidance from the British Equine Veterinary Association which identified that pre-purchase examinations are carried out on behalf of buyers. It noted that in this case, Mr Villar had undertaken an examination on behalf of the owner. Accordingly, it did not find that Mr Villar had failed to explain the PPE process to the potential buyers.

However, the Committee did find that Mr Villar had failed to declare that he had a conflict of interest in regards to Alfie’s owner. The Committee said that Mr Villar should have told the buyer that he had been acting on behalf of the owner and was not a neutral party in the potential sale.

The Committee found all aspects of the second charge not proven, on the basis that it was not satisfied so as to be sure that Mr Villar had told the potential buyers that he had only been asked to trot Alfie and check that he was sound.

The Committee found all aspects of the third charge proven on the basis that, in an email sent to the College in March 2016, Mr Villar admitted that he did not have the sufficient records to prepare a veterinary insurance certificate.

The Committee found the fourth charge not proven on the basis that the buyers were not his clients. The Committee therefore concluded that he had no obligation to respond to them, and indeed could not do so in certain respects in order to preserve the confidentiality of his client.

The Committee then determined that the charges found proven, when taken individually or in combination, did not amount to serious professional misconduct.

Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The following mitigating factors were present in this case: the circumstances of the incident, the fact that there was no premeditation, the fact that he was requested by his client to advance an opinion to [the buyers] concerning Alfie and that his ill judgement was on the spur of the moment and the fact that he had no financial gain. These are all important factors. Likewise, the fact that he did not know that the [buyers] regarded him as their pre-purchase examination vet is an important matter.

"The respondent’s conduct was clearly against the principles of behaviour articulated by Mr Morley [who acted as an expert witness for the College] in his expert report and in his evidence. Nevertheless, the Committee does not find that in the particular circumstances of this case, namely being asked to speak to a potential purchaser without warning and without being made aware of the contractual arrangements which had been made between the respondent and [the owner], the respondent should not properly be the subject of a finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."