Vita Animal Health has published the results of a small survey of 58 horse owners which found that all bar one kept a first aid box, and 57% of those kept a supply of phenylbutazone (Bute).

However, despite keeping this POM-V drug to hand, only 7% said they would seek advice for minor wounds and over 25% said they would not contact the vet even if their horse was lame.

This, says the company, raises concerns about the appropriate use of bute in wounded horses and suggests that practices should be providing first aid training for horse owners, covering basic wound management and when to seek veterinary advice.

The survey, which was posted on social media groups for horse owners, showed they were most likely to call out a vet if their horse had a deep wound (96% of respondents). However, only a third would seek veterinary advice for a wound that is bleeding.

Vita, which makes the veterinary-exclusive Omnimatrix skin cream, said that 84% of owners keep a topical treatment for minor wounds in their first aid box, but some use barrier creams that do not provide an antiseptic environment.

Tara Evans RVN, Head of Sales at Vita, said: "It is great to see that owners are equipped with a first aid box for their horses. However, our survey highlights that many are not seeking veterinary advice, even if their horse is lame. This raises concerns over horses receiving appropriate treatment in a timely manner. There is an opportunity for practices to review first aid boxes with owners to ensure they're stocking appropriate supplies, and discuss appropriate wound management."

Vita has created an owner guide for wound management in horses which you can download and give to clients, here: https://www.vita-europe.com/animalhealth/news/wound-healing-in-horses/ 

The RCVS has announced that it is putting its Westminster headquarters on the market and looking for new premises.

RCVS Council agreed, in principle, to the sale of Belgravia House and for the College and its London-based staff to move to different premises at its November meeting. 

The sale of the building and the move will be overseen by the College’s Estate Strategy Project Board headed by former RCVS President Barry Johnson and including current and former RCVS Council members and RCVS staff.

The RCVS has been based at its current premises in 62-64 Horseferry Road for 25 years, but says it now needs more up-to-date and modern facilities to accommodate a projected increase in the number of staff. 

The College says it has considered a number of alternatives, including expanding the current premises by adding or expanding floors. However, due to the fact that the building is in a conservation area, it has become clear that any such expansions would be unlikely to get planning permission from Westminster Council.

Lizzie Lockett, RCVS Chief Executive, said: "For a number of years it has become apparent that it is fast approaching the time at which our current premises will no longer be fit for purpose due to an increase in the number of RCVS staff – something that is projected to continue in the future – the ongoing need to use the building for Disciplinary Hearings, which take over the lion’s share of available meeting space, and the need for better and more modern facilities.

"Even putting our need for increased space on one side, Belgravia House requires major refurbishment in key areas such as air-conditioning and lifts, which would require staff to vacate the premises for up to 18 months, which would be costly and disruptive.

"We are therefore pleased that Council has recognised the need for the College to move somewhere that better reflects our needs and, over the coming months, we will be exploring a number of different options for new premises.

"In parallel to this we have put out an invitation to tender for agents to manage the sale of the building. The plan is for the arrangement to include lease-back so that we have time to find a suitable premises and enabling us to act quickly when we do."

Any organisations that are interested in putting forward a tender to manage the sale of the building should contact Corrie McCann, RCVS Director of Operations, on 020 7202 0724. Responses to tender are required by 30 November 2018.

Photo: Copyright Google 2018

Virbac Animal Health has launched 'Spray to Win' competition in which vets who use the topical corticosteroid Cortavance between now and the end of June have the chance to win one of five Canon Ixus Cameras worth £150.

To enter the competition, ask your territory manager for a Spray to Win card, spray the pictured dog to ease his pruritus, and answer one question.

Winning cards will reveal either a camera or a 124 page manual on topical glucocorticoid therapy compiled by a group of the world's leading dermatologists.

Virbac product manager Chris Geddes MRCVS said the purpose of the campaign is to illustrate the efficacy of Cortavance as the first line treatment for all pruritic and inflammatory skin disorders: "As a potent skin-specific steroid with no detectable harmful effects¹ and competitive pricing, it's an ideal first line treatment for all atopic dermatitis cases."

There are also automatic rewards in the form of a clinical handbook on canine dermatology or a didactic atlas on canine dermatoses with every 10 bottles of Cortavance purchased, or get both with 15 bottles.

The supply of spray cards is limited, so anyone wishing to obtain a card is advised to contact their Virbac territory manager as soon as possible, or call 01359 243243.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has ended an enquiry against a Cambridgeshire-based veterinary surgeon who had repeatedly breached court orders relating to the control of dogs, after finding that it did not render him unfit to practise.

Amir Kashiv faced a charge of being unfit to practise veterinary surgery after twice being found guilty of letting dogs roam freely on public highways or land not owned or controlled by him in Peterborough Magistrates’ Court, once on 20 April 2016 and once on 16 November 2016, and by having repeatedly breached court orders in relation to the same.

Dr Kashiv admitted the convictions, but denied that individually or in any combination they rendered him unit to practise veterinary surgery. This was therefore left to the judgement of the Committee.

In considering whether the convictions rendered Dr Kashiv unfit for practice, the Committee first considered the facts of the convictions.

Dr Kashiv had long taken in house dogs with physical and behavioural problems, at some stages having as many as 30 on his property. In 2014 neighbours became concerned by dogs escaping and noise nuisances, and on 14 November 2014 Dr Kashiv was served by the Police with a Warning Notice, requiring him to install adequate fencing within 28 days.

Four days later he was then served with an Abatement Notice for a Noise Nuisance about the dogs, and on 10 January 2015 he was then served with a Community Protection Notice requiring him to stop his dogs roaming and ensure adequate fencing.

After multiple subsequent escapes Dr Kashiv pleaded guilty of being in breach of the Community Protection Order at the Magistrates’ Court on 20 April 2016, receiving penalties amounting to £5,000 and costs of £6,000, as well as a two year Criminal Behaviour Order requiring him to reduce the number of dogs to no more than five with 28 days, and requiring his dogs to be supervised at all times while they were outside the house. 

Two months later one of the dogs was seen outside the property, resulting in another conviction for breach of the Criminal Behaviour Order on 16 November 2016, and Dr Kashiv was fined £250 as well as £250 in costs.

The Committee then considered whether this resulted in Dr Kashiv being unfit to practise veterinary surgery. It considered it a serious matter that a veterinary surgeon should allow himself to be made subject to a Warning Notice, and that, being subject to such a Notice, he should then be found in repeated breach of the Notice and invite prosecution. While the Committee accepts that it is difficult to fence his entire grounds, ten acres in total, the Committee took it as a mark against Dr Kashiv that he failed to address the concerns of the authorities by reducing the number of dogs he housed until he was compelled to do so.

Jane Downes, who was chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee regards this as a case close to borderline. These offences, involving the mismanagement by a veterinary surgeon of his animals and repeated offences demonstrate that Dr Kashiv had a less than adequate insight in 2014 and 2015 into the seriousness of the situation or into the understandable concerns of his neighbours and of the authorities. They are capable of bringing the profession into disrepute so as to undermine public confidence in it.

"But, in the end, The Committee has concluded that Dr Kashiv is not unfit by reason of these convictions to practise as a veterinary surgeon. 

"It is apparent from the material before the Committee that Dr Kashiv is a dedicated veterinary surgeon whose life’s work has been devoted to the welfare of small animals and who has gone to extraordinary lengths, at his own expense, to do all that he possibly could to alleviate the suffering of, and rehabilitate, unloved and abandoned and unwell dogs.

"In all the circumstances and in the light of all the evidence the Committee finds that the convictions, whether taken individually or in any combination, do not render Dr Kashiv unfit to practice veterinary surgery."

West Midlands-based veterinary nurse Laura Jane Garfield has been struck off by the RCVS Veterinary Nurse Disciplinary Committee after it found that she had misled and been dishonest with a charity.

The Disciplinary Committee heard that Mrs Garfield had told a representative of the Retired Greyhound Trust (RGT) that she had possession of a greyhound called Lola, that she proposed keeping Lola living with her as an adoptee, and that she would not relinquish possession of Lola except to the RGT. This was despite the fact that, at the time of signing the adoption agreement, she had already given Lola to another charity named Greyhound Gap and that, as a result, her conduct was misleading and dishonest.

In considering the facts of the case, the Committee found the charges and all constituent parts proven and went on to consider whether this amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. 

Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The end result of the respondent’s decisions and conduct meant that RGT was persuaded to pass lawful possession and ownership of the dog Lola to the respondent when it would not have agreed to do so had it been told the truth by her.

"In truth, the respondent was not going to adopt and re-home Lola herself. Instead the respondent’s plan and intention was that Lola should be passed on to a third party who had been recommended by a rival dog rescue charity for rehome and adoption."

Judith added: "The consequence was that a social media dispute broke out when the rival dog charity decided to attempt to take advantage of the erroneous belief of the respondent that a decision had been taken by RGT to put Lola to sleep. The publicity generated by the respondent’s erroneous belief… was obviously adverse…. The gravamen [seriousness] of the respondent’s dishonest conduct was that she set one dog rescue charity against another, caused them to spend publicly raised funds on a legal dispute about who should be allowed to retain Lola when those precious funds ought, instead, to have been spent on their charitable objectives."

The Committee judged that the charge and its parts constituted serious professional misconduct and went on to consider the sanction against Mrs Garfield. 

In considering the proportionate sanction the Committee took into account both mitigating and aggravating factors. In terms of aggravating factors the Committee considered that the dishonesty was pre-meditated, that she accused members of a rescue charity of lying and demonstrated no or only minimal insight into her wrongdoing. In mitigation the Committee considered that Mrs Garfield had cooperated with the College in its investigations, that she had acted in the genuine belief that she was acting in the best interests of Lola and that her conduct did not put Lola at risk or cause her to suffer any adverse consequences as a result. The Committee also accepted the testimonials and positive evidence from colleagues. 

However, the Committee decided that removal from the Register would be the only appropriate sanction.

Summing up Judith Way said: "The reputational consequences for RGT were potentially significant bearing in mind that it is a rescue organisation with some 57 or so branches across the country. All of these consequences, actual and potential, stem from the respondent’s premeditated act of dishonesty in relation to which the Committee considers she showed very limited insight prior to this disciplinary hearing, as she did during the course of this hearing.

"In the result, it is the conclusion and decision of this Committee that the only proper sanction that can be imposed in this case is that the respondent’s name should be removed from the Register.”

Mrs Garfield has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to appeal.

Kent-based veterinary surgeon, David Edward Smith has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee following a conviction for fraud, and for a number of clinical failings.

Mr Smith was convicted of conspiracy to commit a fraud in which potentially dangerous horses were drugged and then sold to unsuspecting owners, at Maidstone Crown Court in June 2016. He was given 30 months' imprisonment, which formed one of the charges heard by the Disciplinary Committee.

There were also a number of charges related to his treatment of five different animals while in practice at the Lakeview Veterinary Centre in Folkestone, Kent. The charges were: 

• In relation to a Clydesdale mare named Grace on 14 August 2014 he failed to perform an adequate examination and/or undertake sufficient investigation and/or take a history of her; that after his initial visit to Grace on that day he failed to respond adequately to the owner’s telephone reports that Grace had deteriorated and/or failed to improve; and, that he failed to make adequate clinical records for Grace.

• Between 29 September 2014 and 31 January 2015, in relation to a Labradoodle named Holly, he failed to keep adequate clinical records.

• In relation to a cat named Maisey the allegations were that he failed to examine and investigate the cat adequately, he made a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and gave insulin to administer to the cat without first undertaking the minimum investigation required, failed to keep adequate clinical records and sent an incorrect, misleading and dishonest statement to the RCVS regarding his treatment of Maisey. All charges date between 30 October and 19 December 2014.

• In relation to a cat called Comet the allegation was that between 1 April and 17 April 2015 he failed to keep adequate clinical records and failed to respond adequately and appropriately to concerns raised by the owner.

• Regarding a Yorkshire Terrier with diabetes named Poppy the allegation was that in two emergency out-of-hours calls made by Poppy’s owner to Mr Smith in April 2015 regarding the dog’s condition, he failed to recommend veterinary treatment or keep adequate clinical records. Furthermore, when the owner attended the practice following the two calls and the death of Poppy, he attributed the care to another member of the practice and failed to communicate effectively with the owner. 

Having heard from a number of witnesses, including Mr Smith, and having received representations from Mr Smith in relation to the above charges, the Committee found almost all of the charges proven, with the exception of those relating to Mr Smith’s alleged conversation with Poppy’s owner at the practice following her death.

The Committee then went on to consider whether the various proven charges amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect and whether the conviction rendered Mr Smith unfit to practise veterinary surgery.

In relation to the clinical charges the Committee found that, both individually and cumulatively, they amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

The Committee also determined that the conviction rendered Mr Smith unfit to practise veterinary surgery and noted that it involved prolonged dishonesty, breach of trust, disregard for animal health and welfare and a "total abrogation of Mr Smith’s professional responsibilities."

Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee was particularly concerned because the dishonesty went to the heart of Mr Smith’s responsibilities as a veterinary surgeon. His registration as a veterinary surgeon enabled him to take part in the conspiracy, and that role involved him conducting certified examinations on animals and supplying drugs for administration to animals. Reliable and honest certification is a vital element of the veterinary surgeon’s public role."

In considering the sanction against Mr Smith the Committee looked at the clinical charges and the conviction separately.

In relation to the clinical charges the Committee found that his treatment of the animals in these cases was fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon. The Committee therefore directed that Mr Smith’s name should be removed from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons.

The Committee said that the case demonstrated that Mr Smith’s lack of treatment or his inappropriate treatment of these animals caused harm and that in some regards, for example the writing of accurate and contemporaneous clinical notes, Mr Smith demonstrated a total disrespect for the Code of Professional Conduct.

The Committee went on to say: "Further, he deliberately lied to his regulator. He demonstrated deep-seated attitudinal issues including a misplaced belief in his own abilities and had no insight or commitment to do anything different in the future. In those circumstances the likelihood of repetition was significant in the Committee’s view."

In considering the sanction for his conviction of conspiracy to commit fraud the Committee took into account a number of aggravating factors including the premeditated nature of the conduct, the fact it was repeated over four years and the fact that harm was caused to both animals and people as a result of his actions. 

Cerys Jones said: "As the decision notes, some of the riders were novices or children and as a result of their experience they lost confidence in riding a horse. As the independent veterinary surgeon Mr Smith was in a position of responsibility because he was certifying the horses as to their suitability. A particularly aggravating feature in this case is that Mr Smith had previously been removed from the Register for falsely certifying horses for export."

In relation to the conviction the Committee also directed that the Registrar remove Mr Smith from the Register.

Mr Smith has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to make an appeal against it.

The full findings can be found here.

BVA Senior Vice President Sean Wensley has been awarded the World Veterinary Association (WVA) Global Animal Welfare Award for Europe.

Sean became interested in animal welfare science as an undergraduate veterinary student, when he was awarded a Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW) Vacation Scholarship to investigate the welfare of caged zebra finches housed under typical pet shop conditions.

Six years later, having been instrumental in developing BVA policy in supporting a ban on the importation of wild-caught birds into the European Union to be kept as pets, Sean represented the position in Brussels and an EU-wide ban was introduced in 2007.

As BVA President in 2015/16, Sean initiated and led the production of BVA’s Animal welfare strategy. Developed through consultation with representatives from across the profession and other sector stakeholders, 'Vets speaking up for animal welfare' lays out a number of strategic actions based on the veterinary profession’s unique opportunity and responsibility to advocate animals' best interests at individual, community and political levels.

The strategy aims to further expand BVA’s animal welfare advocacy; provide tools and support to BVA members in areas such as veterinary ethics; and foster collaboration with other animal welfare-focused partners such as the recently launched BVA/British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA) position paper promoting analgesic use alongside local anaesthesia for routine surgical procedures on calves. To help build BVA’s international animal welfare agenda, Sean has recently been appointed as a member of the FVE Animal Welfare Working Group.

Another important project during Sean’s BVA Presidency was the jointly led BVA/RCVS Vet Futures project. He assisted in developing the Vet Futures report, which identifies veterinary leadership in animal health and welfare as one of the six key ambitions in its 2030 vision for the veterinary profession. While President he also produced an online video with the international animal welfare organisation World Animal Protection on the importance and relevance of animal sentience to the veterinary profession.

British Veterinary Association President Gudrun Ravetz, said: "Improving animal welfare has always been the focus of Sean’s veterinary career, through veterinary practice and policy and developing the profession’s role in advancing animal welfare. Since his undergraduate research and subsequent postgraduate studies in animal welfare, he has undertaken a wide range of overseas volunteer projects and continues to champion and promote understanding of animal welfare at individual, community, national and international levels on a daily basis.

"Sean also led on BVA’s landmark Animal welfare strategy, championing the role of vets as advocates of animals’ best interests and sending a clear signal that the veterinary profession will be a considerable force for good, for animals and for an increasingly compassionate society in the years ahead.

"Sean has made a difference to the lives of many animals with his dedication to animal welfare. I am delighted that Sean is being recognised on an international stage for his fantastic work in the field of animal welfare with this important award."

On receiving his award, Sean said: "It is excellent that WVA has further underpinned its commitment to animal welfare, in line with global society’s expectation of our profession as animal welfare leaders, through the establishment of the Global Animal Welfare Awards. It’s a great honour to be a recipient, which is tribute to my driven and forward-looking colleagues at BVA and PDSA. I thank them, as well as the many other organisations, institutions and individuals who have given me invaluable opportunities and encouragement during my career to date."

MSD Animal Health has launched Fridge Check, a new campaign urging farmers to check their farm fridge temperature and consult their veterinary surgeon about vaccine storage, after conducting research¹ in which not one of 17 farm fridges observed storing vaccines between January and August 2014 were able to maintain the correct internal temperature of between 2⁰C and 8⁰C.

In addition, less than half of those surveyed knew the correct temperature for vaccine storage, showing there is a lack of knowledge surrounding standard procedures.

Paul Williams, MSD Animal Health UK technical manager for ruminants said: "Failing to maintain the correct fridge storage temperature compromises vaccine effectiveness and consequently animal health.

"In a significant number of farm fridges monitored, the temperature was elevated to 8⁰C for long periods of time, with the maximum fridge temperature recorded being 24⁰C.

"In the worst cases, over 60% of fridges had been at 0 ⁰C or below 0 ⁰C long enough for vital contents to freeze. When the temperature is too high, vaccines become ineffective. If frozen, the vaccine is destroyed.

"This research shows we have work to do in educating customers about how to store vaccines and I encourage all farmers to check their farm fridge temperatures.

"To promote better practice, we’ve launched an awareness campaign called Fridge Check to educate farmers on the importance of storing vaccines correctly.

"The campaign is being promoted by Disease? Not On My Farm!, an initiative helping farmers take a more proactive approach to preventing disease on farm."

To find out more, visit the Disease? Not On My Farm! Facebook and Twitter pages or follow the hashtag #FridgeCheck for more information about how to store vaccines correctly.

Reference

1. There is a need to raise farmers’ awareness of correct vaccine storage temperatures. Williams P. (MSD Animal Health), Paixao G. (University of Bristol).

The Blue Cross is urging horse owners and riders to taking part in next week’s National Equine Health Survey (21-28 May 2018).

The ten-minute online survey aims to gather a snapshot of horse health over the period of a week.

The results help to identify trends in endemic equine diseases and help the Blue Cross steer equine awareness, education and research.

This year the survey includes some welfare questions to help guide knowledge in response to what the charity calls 'the UK’s horse welfare crisis'.

The National Equine Health Survey is run by the Blue Cross in partnership with the British Equine Veterinary Association. Dodson and Horrell is helping to cover the costs of running the scheme.

Supporters of the survey include the British Horse Society, Horse Trust, Redwings and the Pony Club.

Medal-winning riders Mary and Emily King, and Yazmin Pinchen (pictured right) also support the survey. 

Visit www.bluecross.org.uk/NEHS or email NEHS@bluecross.org.uk to register and take part, which carries the chance of winning prizes including Star Lister Clippers, a Lister Adagio Trimmer and some Burford Ariat boots.

Carefree Credit has announced that it is now able to offer longer term loans for up to 3 years to help pet owners spread the cost of treatment.

All practices are eligible to register and no FCA authorisation is needed.

Carefree Credit says it will also process applications to make practice administration hassle free. 

Mike Aldred, Director at Carefree Credit, said: "With the deepening cost of living crisis, owning a pet has never been more expensive for many pet owners and having these longer terms available will really help their pets get the treatment they need."

To register your practice with Carefree Credit, email office@carefreecredit.co.uk or call 0345 313 0177.

https://www.carefreecredit.co.uk 

The RCVS Veterinary Nurses Disciplinary Committee has ordered that Karen Tracey Hancock be removed from the Register after finding that she had been dishonest about an injury she claimed to have sustained while working in practice in August 2015.

The inquiry in regard to Karen Tracey Hancock took place in her absence in January, after she indicated that she was content not to appear or to be represented. 

The charges against Mrs Hancock related to an injury she falsely claimed she sustained to her knee while moving a euthanased dog in August 2015 that was then exacerbated while moving another dog a couple of weeks later.

The charges also stated that she made entries in the practice’s accident book also stating that she had injured her knee at work and then aggravated it later.

The charges also stated that, in County Court civil proceedings against the practice in relation to the alleged injuries, she falsely:

• issued a claim notification form dated 22 January 2016 stating that she had sustained a knee injury caused by her work at the practice in August 2015;
• signed a statement dated 30 June 2017 stating that she had sustained a knee injury at work on 13 August 2015 which had then been aggravated at work on the 29 August 2015;
• issued Particulars of Claim dated 13 July 2018 stating that she had sustained a knee injury caused by her work at the practice on 13 August 2015.

The Committee noted that the County Court claim made by Mrs Hancock was listed for a trial and concluded with a consent order dated 21 June 2019 which stated that the claim was dismissed.

It also considered evidence from eyewitnesses regarding the two alleged events that led to and exacerbated her knee injury in August 2015. In doing so the Committee found that, though Mrs Hancock did have an injury to her right knee, this was due to a horse-riding incident a number of years earlier and that her account of the incidents on 13 and 29 August, and therefore her claims to have been caused injury by them, were false and that her conduct had been dishonest.

The Committee therefore found all charges against Mrs Hancock proven.

The Committee then considered whether the proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct. In doing so it considered submissions made by Counsel for the RCVS that there were a number of aggravating factors in the case of Mrs Hancock’s conduct including that the misconduct was sustained over a long period of time, was premeditated and involved lying for financial gain.

In commenting on whether the conduct was serious professional misconduct Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee found all of the aggravating factors set out… in this case applied to its decision on whether or not the conduct amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

"Such conduct would bring the profession of veterinary nurses into disrepute and would undermine public confidence in the profession because the dishonesty was directly concerned with the respondent’s work as a veterinary nurse in the veterinary practice.

"The Committee concluded that the dishonest behaviour was serious misconduct, particularly so because it took place at the respondent’s workplace. It considered that honesty and trust between veterinary nurses and their employers is essential to the profession and that such conduct as set out in the charges would be considered deplorable by other members of the profession."

The Committee was therefore satisfied that all four charges individually and cumulatively amounted to serious professional misconduct.

Committee members then considered the appropriate sanction for Mrs Hancock, taking into account the aggravating factors, including a lack of insight in that, in correspondence before the hearing, she continued to deny the charges. In mitigation it noted that there had been a significant lapse of time and that she had a long and hitherto unblemished career.

On balance it decided that removal from the Register was the appropriate and proportionate sanction and requested Mrs Hancock be removed from the Register, particularly as dishonesty is considered ‘in the top spectrum of gravity’ for misconduct.

Judith Way added: “The Committee acknowledged that the respondent was physically unwell with her knee between 2015 and 2019. However there was no evidence that her health had caused her to commit the misconduct. It noted the representations that the respondent made regarding the need to support herself financially but the Committee determined that the public interest outweighed the respondent’s own interests in this case because the proven dishonesty in the circumstances in which it took place was fundamentally incompatible with continued professional registration.

“In the Committee’s judgment without any evidence of remorse or insight by the respondent a suspension order could not meet the public interest in this case. It therefore concluded that removal of the Respondent’s name from the register was the proportionate and appropriate sanction in this case.”

FEDIAF, the European pet food industry federation, has published a new expert paper on the nutritional needs of older dogs.

The paper was written by FEDIAF’s Scientific Advisory Board, comprised of independent academics from leading European universities, with the aim of informing both the industry and the public.

Based on recent scientific data, the paper explains the different life expectancies of dogs related to their size, and defines when "old age" sets in. It explains how changes in the digestive tract can affect food intake, how food texture may become a crucial factor, and how aging can lead to changes in energy metabolism and alter the nutrient requirements of senior dogs. It also offers practical guidance to pet owners for feeding an older dog.

Dr Thomas Brenten, Chairman of FEDIAF’s Nutrition & Analytical Science Group said: "Age-related changes in cognitive functions, behaviour, skin, digestive tract, cardiovascular system, respiratory tract, degenerative joint and skeletal function, as well as urinary disorders are the most common issues concerning older dogs. Many of these can be addressed via nutrition."

The paper can be downloaded in the new section on science on FEDIAF’s website: https://tinyurl.com/fediaf-senior-dogs.

Essex-based Anne Mullen MRCVS has been suspended from the Register for two months by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for failing to have professional indemnity insurance (PII) or equivalent arrangements in compliance with the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons.

The case was brought by the College after a member of the public raised a 'concern' relating to Mrs Mullen's practice in December 2015. The concern was not pursued by the College. 

However, during its initial investigation, the RCVS case manager ascertained that contrary to the requirements of the Code of Professional Conduct, Mrs Mullen did not have PII.

In January 2016 Mrs Mullen was advised by the College that, in order to comply with the Code, she needed to ensure her professional activities were covered by PII or equivalent arrangements.

The matter was considered by the Preliminary Investigation Committee which asked, in October 2016, that Mrs Mullen produce evidence that she was now compliant with the requirement to have PII or equivalent. Mrs Mullen responded in November 2016 confirming that she had not put in place such arrangements.

The case was then referred to the Disciplinary Committee in January 2017.

During the hearing it was determined that, during the relevant time period (from November 2015 to November 2016) Mrs Mullen was practising but did not have professional indemnity insurance in place and therefore was in breach of the Code. 

Mrs Mullen, who represented herself, told the Committee that she admitted that she did not have PII. She explained that she was 'ethically and morally opposed to it' as she felt that it did not give fair compensation to claimants and did not know it was a requirement of the Code of Professional Conduct until she was informed by the College in January 2016.  

When giving oral evidence as to equivalent arrangements she disclosed that she kept significant funds in a bank account; these were not however specifically earmarked for use in the event of any possible claims, and were also required to pay practice expenses.

In light of evidence produced by the College and her own admissions, the charges against Mrs Mullen were found proved and she was found guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

In coming to this decision Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The respondent failed to have PII in place for a period of about 12 months as specified in the charges. Moreover, she failed to remedy the situation when advised in January 2016 by the College that she was in breach of the Code and the supporting guidance. This remains a continuous course of conduct, which has still not been remedied. The respondent has chosen not to read the Code, or the supporting guidance, until very recently, in relation to her obligation to have PII or equivalent arrangements in place, and she failed to heed the advice of the College that she must rectify the position." 

In considering the sanction the Committee took into account mitigating and aggravating factors. Aggravating factors included the fact that the misconduct was sustained over a significant period of time and that limited insight was shown by Mrs Mullen. While she did begin to display limited insight into the significance of her misconduct, the Committee said that this insight was "hampered by her ambivalence towards the College and the systems that regulate the veterinary profession."

In mitigation the Committee took into account Mrs Mullen’s long and unblemished career and the fact she was a sole practitioner who reported challenging personal circumstances and provided a unique service to a niche group of clients.

However, Chitra Karve said: "The Committee is unable to overlook the Respondent’s lack of commitment to obtaining PII or equivalent arrangements, even after being advised by the College that this was essential. The Committee is aware that a suspension could adversely affect her practice and her clients that she uniquely serves. However the Committee thinks it is necessary to send a clear message to the respondent and the public, that failure to obtain PII or equivalent arrangements is wholly unacceptable."

She added: "Accordingly, the Committee directs the Registrar to suspend the respondent’s registration for a period of two months. The Committee considers that this period of suspension will give the respondent an opportunity to rectify her breaches of the Code in relation to PII… and to reflect upon her attitude towards the College and the appropriate regulation of the veterinary profession."