Mr Cortes had pleaded guilty to the offences in January 2017 at Cardiff Crown Court. In February 2017, he was sentenced to six months imprisonment suspended for two years with a requirement to complete unpaid work and rehabilitation activity and a victim surcharge. Following Mr Cortes’ conviction the matters were referred to the RCVS and Mr Cortes was subsequently referred to the Disciplinary Committee.
Mr Cortes did not attend at the Disciplinary Committee hearing and was not represented. The Disciplinary Committee, being satisfied that Mr Cortes had been served with the Notice of Inquiry and having considered and taken into account a number of separate factors, decided that it would be in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing in his absence.
The Committee considered whether Mr Cortes’ convictions rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon. Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee has reached the conclusion that the respondent’s possession of this material which has led to his convictions was so reprehensible as to merit the description disgraceful. It considers that by possessing this material, the respondent has brought disgrace on the profession and will have undermined confidence in it. It therefore finds that the convictions have rendered the respondent unfit to practise veterinary surgery."
In considering the sanction the Committee decided that removing Mr Cortes from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons was the only available option. Ms Karve added: "The Committee has determined that the respondent’s behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with being a member of the veterinary profession. It therefore directs the Registrar to remove the respondent’s name… from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons."
Lowestoft vet Frank Eric Ainsworth MRCVS has received a severe reprimand and warning as to future conduct from the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after being found guilty of serious professional misconduct.
The charge against Mr Ainsworth was that in July 2013, he failed to provide adequate care to Ash, a dog presented to him whilst he was working as a locum at Pinebank Veterinary Surgery in Kent.
Specifically, the charge was that having diagnosed Ash with heatstroke, Mr Ainsworth failed to admit the dog to the practice for urgent treatment, failed to transfer the dog to another practice, failed to suggest euthanasia, and failed to offer the owner, Mr McMahon, adequate treatment advice.
On presentation to Mr Ainsworth at Pinebank between 7am and 8am, Ash was collapsed and his symptoms included diarrhoea, vomiting, lethargy and a high temperature.
On being told that Ash had heatstroke and was unlikely to survive, Mr McMahon asked Mr Ainsworth whether anything could be done to save him, but was told the practice did not have the necessary treatment facilities. Mr McMahon was advised to take Ash home and use cold running water, ice packs and fans to reduce his temperature.
After Mr McMahon took Ash home and showered him in cold water, his wife telephoned Pinebank to complain. The practice receptionist, Ms Baldock, confirmed to her that there was nothing they could do.
Mrs McMahon asked if her husband could take Ash to Pinebank's out-of-hours service provider, but was told this was not an option.
Eventually, Mr McMahon took Ash to an alternative practice, Sandhole Vets, where the dog was treated by the practice owner, Mr Johnson. Mr McMahon was told that Ash was unlikely to survive and that, if there was no improvement, he should consider euthanasia. Around 45 minutes after the treatment was started, Ash suffered seizures and died shortly thereafter.
Mr Ainsworth told the Committee that he did not think Pinebank had adequate facilities to treat a dog of Ash's size for heatstroke and was unaware that it had a hosepipe and watering can. In addition, he did not believe it would be practical and effective to reduce Ash's temperature with wet towels and considered that the main priority of reducing the temperature would be best done at home.
Mr Ainsworth told the Committee that he intended to make enquiries about referring Ash to another practice once his temperature had been reduced at home. He was about to search the internet for alternative practices when he overheard his colleague's phone conversation with Mrs McMahon and assumed that Ash had been taken to another practice.
Mr Ainsworth accepted that he did not discuss euthanasia with Mr McMahon, which he said he would have done at a later stage if Ash's condition did not improve. He also accepted that he made no further enquiries of Ms Baldock and did not telephone Mr McMahon to check if Ash had gone to another practice.
Before reaching its decision the Committee considered, in detail, the testimony of a number of witnesses and experts for both the College and Mr Ainsworth. It rejected Mr Ainsworth's evidence that his treatment plan was to follow up his investigations into Ash's case or contact Mr McMahon by telephone. It concluded that, if such a plan had been in place, he would have informed Mr McMahon of his intentions.
The Committee also rejected Mr Ainsworth's evidence that he had overheard the conversation between Ms Baldock and Mrs McMahon. It said it was not credible that, if he had heard the call, that he would not have made further enquiries.
The Committee found the charges proven. For example, it concluded that Mr Ainsworth should have made further enquiries about the treatment facilities available at the practice for cooling Ash and, if he felt that they were inadequate, should have advised Mr McMahon to take the dog to another practice. It also felt it was inappropriate for Mr Ainsworth to have sent Ash home to the care of his owners while in a critical condition without first seeking the option of referral.
Furthermore, the Committee felt that Mr Ainsworth should have given Mr McMahon the full range of treatment options available, including oxygen and fluids as Ash was in a collapsed state, before he left the practice, as well as discussing euthanasia.
However, the Committee did accept, on the basis of Mr Ainsworth's clinical records, that he had given advice to Mr McMahon on how Ash could be cooled down at home, although it felt the advice could have been more detailed.
In deciding its sanction for Mr Ainsworth the Committee accepted that his actions were not motivated by indifference to animal welfare but that, on this occasion, there was a serious lapse of judgment.
The Committee also considered that this was a single incident on Mr Ainsworth's first day at the practice and that he had been confronted with an emergency situation before the practice had opened. It accepted that Mr Ainsworth had an unblemished career over the past 38 years and that he had produced character references from other veterinary surgeons attesting his integrity, skill and conscientiousness.
Judith Webb, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee has concluded that the sanction proportionate to Mr Ainsworth's conduct is one of severe reprimand and warning as to his future conduct."
She added: "The Committee considers that veterinary surgeons are required to be proactive in their duty of care and refer cases when they do not have the ability to deal with cases appropriately."
The Committee also recommended that Mr Ainsworth should undertake, in the next 12 months, continuing professional development with an emphasis on emergency and critical care and client communication.
The Committee's full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
Liz, a mother of two who qualified at Cambridge in 2004 and now works part time doing ECC shifts at the Cromwell Veterinary Group and shelter medicine at Wood Green, said: "I’m an average GP vet-mum who found a happy work-life balance after a decade in practice. Fed up with bemoaning the state of the profession, I started looking into solutions. And there are many; a growing wave of initiatives by both veterinary organisations and individuals to address the issues facing the profession and move us to a brighter future. But all of this reading took time, and I wanted to help friends and colleagues access appropriate resources quickly and efficiently.
"So, I’ve created www.vetsnet.net; a website to curate, collate and summarise a wide range of resources covering everything from support for employers/employees/students, financial advice, mental wellbeing, career breaks, advice for mums, and a vet sports page to celebrate and highlight sporting endeavours and encourage us to get active. The site is free access and not-for-profit. If you have a resource you’d like me to add, or if you are able to promote or support the site in any way, please contact: liz.barton@vetsnet.net”
For the study, researchers reviewed more than three million medical records from Banfield Pet Hospital across 60 breeds of dogs in the United States, finding that periodontal disease (both gingivitis and periodontitis) occurred in 18.2% of dogs overall (517,113 cases).
The authors say that while the true prevalence of periodontal disease (44-100% of cases) is only realised through in-depth clinical investigation, the figure reported in this study was consistent with other research based on conscious oral examinations.
When the authors reviewed the data by dog size, they found that extra-small breeds (<6.5 kg/14.3 lbs) were up to five times more likely to be diagnosed with periodontal disease than giant breeds (>25 kg/55 lbs)(P <0.0001).
Additional risk factors for periodontal disease seen in the study included a dog’s age, being overweight and time since last scale and polish.
Dr Corrin Wallis, Microbiome Workstream Leader at the Waltham Petcare Science Institute said: "This is not the first study suggesting that smaller dogs are more likely to have dental problems than larger dogs, but many of the earlier studies looked at a relatively small number of dogs".
The five breeds with the highest prevalence of periodontal disease found in the study were the large Greyhound (38.7%), the medium-small Shetland Sheepdog (30.6%), and the extra-small Papillon (29.7%), Toy Poodle (28.9%), and Miniature Poodle (28.2%). Giant breed dogs (such as the Great Dane and Saint Bernard) were among the lowest breed prevalence estimates.
The authors say there are several potential reasons why smaller dogs are more likely to develop dental issues than larger dogs. For example, smaller dogs may have proportionally larger teeth, which can lead to tooth overcrowding and increased build-up of plaque leading to inflammation of gums. Smaller dogs also have less alveolar bone (the bone that contains tooth sockets) compared to their relatively large teeth.
Corrin added: "Regardless of the reasons that smaller dogs have increased risk for periodontal disease, knowing the true magnitude of the risk across breeds is an important step in providing quality care for all dogs, both in the veterinarian’s office and at home.
Reference
It’s very significant because it’s the first time the College has produced material for practices that highlights the responsibilities of pet owners, as well as those of veterinary surgeons and nurses.
As such, it should be a really useful tool to support the advice given by veterinary surgeons and nurses in practice.
In other words, don’t just stick it on the wall in some hidden part of the waiting room. Display it prominently by the reception desk, and point to it when explaining why owners need to make their own arrangements to bring the animal into the practice in emergency, for example. Or why you can’t prescribe drugs when you haven’t seen the animal for 8 years.
The idea for the poster was first mooted by Jonathan Wray MRCVS in the forum on VetSurgeon.org, after he’d seen a similar thing produced by the French regulator for veterinary practices in France.
VetSurgeon.org decided to produce an English version with input from vets as to what they would like a UK version of the poster to say.
On reflection, however, it was always something which would carry so much more clout if it came from the regulator, so we turned the idea over to the RCVS.
To its great credit, the College ran with the idea and had the poster designed and put through its Standards Committee. The result has now been posted to all practices in the UK, with a pdf version available to download from www.rcvs.org.uk/poster.
The RCVS is now inviting feedback about the poster at communications@rcvs.org.uk.
If you like the poster, I really do urge you drop the College a quick line at that email address and say so. Better still - and I will probably be put on the naughty step for saying this - cc L.Lockett@rcvs.org.uk and i.holloway@rcvs.org.uk. It was they who took the idea forward and made it happen. I think they deserve a round of applause.
The second biggest financial worry was the cost of dog food (18%), followed by pet insurance (16%).
The news came as Dogs Trust announced that it has had 50,000 requests this year from owners asking the charity to take in their dog, a new record in the charity's history.
The outlook for 2023 doesn't look any more optimistic; the poll also found that 62% of people who don’t currently own a dog think the rising cost of living would prevent them from getting one in 2023, whilst 36% said it ‘definitely would’ and 25% said it ‘probably would’.
In the meantime 21% said they would give their dog fewer presents this year, whilst 13% said they won’t give their dogs a present at all this Christmas, despite giving presents in previous years.
Maybe that's a good thing. After all why were they wasting money in the first place: the dog doesn't know it's Christmas, or appreciate a present.
Perhaps more significantly, fewer dog owners will be going away for a Christmas break this year: 9% said they’d be staying home because they can't afford a dog sitter.
Owen Sharp, Chief Executive of Dogs Trust, said: “Although it was inevitable that we would reach 50,000 calls from owners no longer able to care for their dogs, it’s still a shock and a stark signifier of the animal welfare crisis the UK now finds itself in.
“Through our December poll, dog owners have told us they’re going to struggle this Christmas, and many more are really worried about what 2023 is going to bring."
Ms Hill and Wilfred Wong snatched the child from their foster carer when they arrived home from school on Anglesey.
Hill wrestled the child from the car and put them in a waiting vehicle while Wong held a knife to the foster carer’s throat before slashing one of the carer’s car tyres to stop them following.
Having made their escape, they then transferred the child into the hands of two other conspirators who had hired a car to take the child abroad.
The child was rescued four hours later when the hire car was stopped by police on the M1 in Northamptonshire.
A police investigation later concluded that the child had not been the victim of any abuse.
Ms Hill was sentenced at Caernarfon Crown Court to 19 years, 5 months, with a custodial term of 14 years and five months.
Ms Hill did not attend the RCVS disciplinary hearing as she was serving her prison sentence, and she was not represented.
In relation to the charges, the Committee was presented with the sentencing remarks from Ms Hill’s conviction at Mold Crown Court.
The judge said that Ms Hill had led the conspiracy to kidnap, and that it had caused the victim and the people responsible for their care “unspeakable misery and considerable harm”.
The judge also said that Ms Hill posed a significant risk of causing serious harm in the future.
Dr Hazel Bentall, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee took into account a number of aggravating features when considering the sanctions.
"In particular, the Committee considered that the conviction arose as a result of careful planning over several months and involved the use of violence.
"The Committee concluded that there were no mitigating factors apart from that Dr Hill had no previous regulatory history and that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was that Dr Hill’s removal from the Register of veterinary surgeons be maintained.”
Dr Hill has 28 days from being notified of her removal from the Register to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.
The Committee’s full findings can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The Daily Mail has today published an interview with the 'nurse' who worked undercover at Medivet for tonight's Panorama documentary: It shouldn't happen at a vets (tonight, BBC1 9pm).
Looks like the communications departments at the RCVS, BVA and BSAVA will be run off their feet today. So far, the following radio stations and newspapers have run stories:
BBC Online has published a longer trailer for the programme here.BBC Radio 4 Today - interview with the mole, followed by Sandy Trees (in the recording of the entire programme, it starts at 1:09:05 on the iPlayer timeline)BBC Radio 5 live - interview with Jacquie Molyneux (not available on iPlayer)BBC Radio Tees - 7:50am interview with Bill Reilly (BVA)BBC Radio Somerset - 8:00am interview with Bill Reilly (BVA)BBC Radio Shropshire - 8:40am interview with Bill Reilly (BVA)Aberdeen Press & JournalBBC TwitterChina News (in Chinese)BBC Radio 2 - Jeremy Vine interviews Steve Leonard (starts at 1:10:56 on the iPlayer timeline. Continues through at least a couple of songs. At one point, Jeremy Vine says there are lots of reports coming into the show of good vets too!).dogmagazine.netThe Guardian (TV Review)
I'll be updating the list of news reports over the course of the day.
And reaction to the story elsewhere on the Internet ...
UK Labradoodle forumDigital SpyYahoo AnswersPet forumshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31MgikMLneU (well worth watching, this one).Horse & Hound forums
Incidentally, in case anyone is asked for an interview, BVA has produced an advice sheet on the subject for its members, plus a briefing document. The association has also published a response to the Daily Mail story on its website.
The robot is used to show how well potential new products or prototypes are performing when it comes to plaque removal.
Built using a scan of a real canine mouth and jaw, the 3D-printed model replicates the normal mastication action of a dog and the pressures it might exert on a dental chew. This, the company says, allows it to test the effectiveness of different product materials and shapes more rapidly and then refine its products at a much earlier stage in the research and development process.
Dr Phil McGenity, Global Pet Oral Care Technical Leader, Mars Petcare said the robot allows them to observe the effects of a dental chew much more easily than in a real dog: "Typically, it’s very difficult to look inside the mouth of a dog while it's chewing, but this robot allows us to assess products more rapidly than we’ve ever been able to in the past. It means we can continually improve the texture and materials in our products."
Mars uses the robot to compare different textures and shapes of products by analysing how much plaque is removed from the robot’s teeth.
Phil said: "We apply a plaque mimic to the surface of the teeth, so we can observe how effectively different prototypes or textures remove this mimic. We take before and after images and, using computer analysis, we can accurately determine what percentage of plaque has been removed.
"This robot has been extremely beneficial for us, to see just how visible the effects of our products, such as DentaStix Daily Oral Care, are."
Veterinary dentist John Robinson said: "One of the key benefits of the chewing robot is it allows a preliminary testing stage before you move into clinical trials. Clinical trials are lengthy and expensive, but the chewing robot means the product can be refined and improved to ensure optimum effectiveness.
"Then you can move into the full clinical trial knowing it has already had extensive texture and plaque removal analysis."
He added: "New research developments such as the chewing robot are vital to improving home dental care in dogs and giving vets the confidence to recommend dental chews to dog owners. Although brushing is regarded as the gold standard, vets need to work more closely with owners to improve homecare via the use of dental products."
Mars Petcare has produced a short report explaining each stage its product development and testing. You can download the report on the WALTHAM website: https://www.waltham.com/waltham-research/oral-health-research/oral-health-r-d/
NexGard Combo is a systemic isoxazoline-based endectocide designed specifically for cats which contains esafoxolaner, eprinomectin and praziquantel.
The new product provides one month’s protection against fleas and five week's protection against the most common tick on cats, Ixodes ricinus. It also treats the roundworms, Toxocara cati and Toxascaris leonina, hookworms, tapeworms and ear mites, against the last of which Nexgard Combo provides 97.2 to 99.9% efficacy following one treatment1.
NexGard Combo can be used in kittens from eight weeks of age and 0.8 kg in weight, making it suitable for most kittens at first vaccination. It is available in two pack sizes: small, for kittens weighing 0.8 - 2.5kg and large, for adult cats weighing 2.5 - 7.5kg. For cats weighing 7.5kg or over, an appropriate combination of applicators should be used.
Jackie Sterratt, senior brand manager at Boehringer Ingelheim, said: “We’re excited to add to the successful NexGard range and to help vets treat more cats. We know only one in two cats is treated for fleas2 and cats are only wormed on average three times per year3 despite all cats being at risk of fleas and most cats requiring monthly roundworming treatment2, 3, so there is a big opportunity to increase treatment rates and compliance. As the only product on the market to treat fleas, ticks, ear mites, roundworms and tapeworms, NexGard Combo offers a simple solution for cats at risk of multiple parasites."
To support the launch Boehringer has produced a marketing package which includes a kitten support pack, client leaflets, dispensing envelope and parasite risk checker.
For further information, contact your local Boehringer Ingelheim territory manager or phone 01344 746957 (UK) or 01 291 3985 (Ireland).
References
Vetemex has a 56-day broached shelf life and uses benzyl alcohol as the excipient, rather than metacresol.
Virbac points to a study in which benzyl alcohol achieved a 78% reduction in pain score immediately post-injection, and a 53% reduction in pain score in the 2-minute period post-injection, compared to Metacresol1.
Vetemex is presented in a 20ml bottle and is available from the veterinary wholesalers now.
Claire Lewis, Product Manager at Virbac said: "Vetemex is a valuable addition to the already extensive Virbac portfolio. We are pleased to be able to offer vets this new, and more comfortable to administer, antiemetic option."
For more information on Vetemex, speak to your Virbac Territory Manager.
At the June 2017 meeting of RCVS Council, members decided to look into two models by which paraprofessionals working in the veterinary, animal health or related fields, might be regulated by the College under powers granted by the RCVS’s Royal Charter in 2015.
The first was an accreditation model, which would involve the RCVS accrediting an organisation which would regulate the profession in question. The second was an associate/ full regulation model, in which individual paraprofessionals would receive a similar level of regulation to that already received by veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.
At its January 2019 meeting, RCVS Council agreed to proceed with both proposed models of paraprofessional regulation, with the suitability of each model being considered on a case-by-case basis, depending on the nature of the profession applying for recognition.
Paraprofessions whose work will need to be underpinned by Schedule 3 reform would need to apply for the associate model, as the RCVS would be required to be directly responsible for the register of any individuals undertaking such minor acts of veterinary surgery.
Two paraprofessional groups that have already expressed an interest in being regulated by the College, namely meat inspectors and animal behaviourists, will now be invited to apply for associate or accredited status.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: "This is a very significant decision by Council to open up a pathway to related paraprofessions to apply to become regulated by the College.
"It is difficult to give a time-frame at this stage as to when these particular professions will be brought on board, as we will have to go through a process of developing a number of new regulatory structures including registration, education and investigation and disciplinary, as well as the appropriate governing bodies for each of the professions.
"However, we are very pleased that the Association of Meat Inspectors (AMI) and the Animal Behaviour and Training Council (ABTC) have expressed an interested in being regulated by the College and we look forward to working with them to make this happen."
David Montgomery, President of the ABTC, said: "The ABTC enthusiastically welcomes the news that the RCVS is expanding its influence to include paraprofessionals. We look forward to exploring the opportunity to demonstrate the professional status of ABTC-registered Animal Trainers and Behaviourists by coming under the regulatory umbrella of the RCVS for the benefit of animal welfare."
Ian Robinson, a Trustee of the AMI, said: "The Association of Meat Inspectors welcome the news that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons intends to invite paraprofessionals to be regulated under the ambit of the RCVS. We believe it will offer enhanced security, opportunity and status, and we look forward to further dialogue to explore the various models in due course."
The College says it is also in touch with a number of other paraprofessional groups, including those representing animal musculoskeletal practitioners and equine dental technicians, about the future of paraprofessional regulation. However, before such professions could become associates, there would need to be reform of the Veterinary Surgeons Act in order to remedy some of the deficiencies of the current legislative regime and make sure that these groups have appropriate legal underpinning for their work. This, says the College, complements ongoing discussions on changes to the legislative framework to bolster the role of veterinary nurses.
On particular issue that the College says the new proposals are designed to remedy is that of equine dental procedures being carried out by well-trained but nevertheless unregulated paraprofessionals. Neil Townsend, Chair of the British Equine Veterinary Association’s (BEVA) Allied Professional Committee, said: "Change to the current situation, where legislative enforcement is impossible, horse owners are confused, and horse welfare is compromised, is long overdue. BEVA is really pleased that the RCVS has listened and is supporting a proposal for regulation of all equine dental procedures. We hope that Government will act."
RCVS President Amanda Boag, said: "This is a real milestone in the history of the RCVS and represents quite possibly the biggest change to our regulatory role since the introduction of the Register of veterinary nurses in 2007, and should Schedule 3 reform be achieved it would be the most significant change since the role of veterinary nurses was first recognised in law in 1991. It is particularly befitting for our 175th anniversary year, as it demonstrates we are an organisation that can evolve to meet the changes occurring in the wider veterinary and animal health sector and use our regulatory experience and expertise to ensure that animal health and welfare and public health is safeguarded in different, but related fields of endeavour."
The full approved paper regarding the review of the minor procedures regime and paraprofessional regulation can be found on the RCVS website at: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/policy/veterinary-legislation-review/
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has agreed to adjourn multiple charges against a Hampshire-based veterinary surgeon who first registered in 1950, following his undertakings firstly to request removal from the RCVS Register and secondly never apply to be restored to it.
At yesterday's hearing, William Bamber Cartmell of Wickham, near Fareham, was due to face seven heads of charge containing "serious allegations" relating to his provision of expert evidence in a case involving the RSPCA; his certification, following clinical examination, of the health of two horses for a prospective purchaser; and his clinical competence during treatment of a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel called Milly.
However, before the Committee considered any of the facts behind these charges - all of which Mr Cartmell denied - the College submitted an application suggesting that they should be adjourned, providing that Mr Cartmell agreed to the three undertakings (the third being not to act as an expert witness in litigation in future). The College also suggested that, should Mr Cartmell subsequently apply to be restored to the Register, the Committee should resume its consideration of the charges, along with his breach of the undertakings.
The Committee was advised that none of the complainants in the case - which could have exceeded four weeks and incurred considerable costs - dissented from the proposed course of action. It also heard that Mr Cartmell had recently retired from his practice, which was now closed and his clients dispersed to other practices. In over 60 years of practising, there had been no adverse disciplinary findings against him.
Speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, its Chairman, Professor Peter Lees, said: "Having carefully considered the matters put before us, we have concluded that it would not be in the public interest to refuse the College's application and proceed with this case.
"We are satisfied that the undertakings offered by the Respondent protect the welfare of animals and uphold the reputation of the profession. [These undertakings also] go beyond any sanction that this Committee could impose at the conclusion of a contested hearing where any of the heads of charge were found proven.
"We do not consider that it would be proportionate for either party to incur the substantial costs of a contested hearing. We have also paid particular regard to the age of the Respondent and to his length of service without any adverse findings having been made against him."
Sylvie, a four-month-old Maine Coon, was referred to NDSR with a loud heart murmur. Scans revealed she was suffering from a severe obstruction on the right side of her heart which was steadily becoming worse.
Her condition, double chambered right ventricle, is very rare and, until now, could only be corrected by open heart surgery. However, NDSR specialist cardiologist João Loureiro believed this would be too much of a risk for frail Sylvie, so he opted for a cutting balloon angioplasty which had never been applied to cats before because their hearts are so small.
He and fellow cardiology specialist Joel Silva carried out the procedure, which involved inserting two balloons on a wire into a vein in Sylvie’s neck and on to her heart. The first had four cutting blades, which were manipulated to score the obstruction before the second was gently inflated in order to relieve it. After the wire and balloons had been removed, the incision in Sylvie’s neck required just two stitches and within 48 hours she was well enough to return home.
A subsequent scan showed the level of obstruction had been reduced from severe to mild and her owner, Dr Bob Baxter, described her as “much more lively”.
João, who has a special interest in the treatment of congenital heart disease in small animals, said the decision to perform the interventional ballooning was made because of the risks of open heart surgery and the recent development of veterinary applications of the cutting balloon technique.
João said: "As Sylvie’s condition was so rare, wider application of the technique is limited in terms of the number of cats which could benefit from it. However, it is extremely relevant to those individuals who are affected and could be of use in the treatment of other, more common, conditions."
Joel said: "Cutting balloon angioplasty is routinely used in human medicine for treating narrowed and stiffened blood vessels and has recently been adapted to treat a heart condition in dogs but we believe this may be the first time it has been used to treat this condition in a cat."
The research, which was carried out by analysing data from 455,557 dogs which presented at veterinary practices participating in the College’s VetCompass programme, investigated the frequency, severity and duration of anal sac disorder, conjunctivitis, dental disease, dermatitis, obesity, lipoma, osteoarthritis and otitis externa.
The main findings were:
The most common conditions were dental disorder (9.6%), overweight/obese (5.7%) and anal sac disorder (4.5%)
The conditions that lasted the longest were dental disorders (76% of year), osteoarthritis (82%), and overweight/obese (70%)
Scoring out of 21, with higher scores for greater severity, the most severe conditions were osteoarthritis (13/21), otitis externa (11/21) and dermatitis (10/21).
The researchers say that by considering frequency, duration and severity together, the study showed that the conditions with the highest welfare impact overall are dental disease, osteoarthritis and obesity.
It is hoped these results can help vets to target conditions that have the greatest impact on dogs they treat. The evidence also shows owners the value of addressing these important conditions to improve their animal’s welfare. The study also provides evidence for other stakeholders on which conditions merit further research prioritisation.
Dave Brodbelt, Professor of Evidence-based Veterinary Medicine at the RVC and senior researcher on the study, said: "First opinion veterinary professionals see dogs presenting to them with a range of conditions everyday and understand what are the common diseases that they treat. Yet there is a need for clear evidence based welfare assessment of the major conditions of dogs. This work adds to our understanding by allowing the transparent comparison of commonly seen disorders in primary practice and highlights conditions with greatest welfare impact."
Dr Dan O’Neill, Senior lecturer in epidemiology at the RVC and co-author said: "During my 20 years as a first opinion vet, owners constantly asked me to advise them about the most important conditions that they should try to prevent in their dogs. At that time, I could not answer this as it was unknown to science. We now have this answer; and we can now advise owners to focus on dental health, monitoring for joint disease and to pay special attention to their dogs body condition score. Finally, we have the key to prioritising long-term health in dogs overall. This is a huge step forward to improving dog welfare; huge thanks to Dogs Trust for having the vision to support this work."
The study is freely available open access.
Kruuse has announced that it has become the exclusive distributor for VideoMed GmbH and its range of veterinary endoscopes and documentation systems.
VideoMed produces a range of equine and small animal endoscopes, gastroscopes and laryngoscopes that multifunction with a flexible documentation console. This provides a mobile capability to file, frame and forward digital and dicom images for review and referral diagnosis.
According to Kruuse, VideoMed products are synonymous with the very highest quality of design, function and reliability that have been developed through years of close working relationship with veterinary professionals. An after care and repair service is also provided by the company for its own and a range of other scopes.
Kruuse says the Overground scope gives a mobile, high resolution, recordable image that clearly determines functional and morphological abnormalities of the larynx, pharynx and upper respiratory system (see image right).
Andrew Groom, Managing Director, Kruuse UK Ltd., said: "This exciting agreement will further enhance our equine and small animal presence within the veterinary industry to bring even more leading edge technology to our customers."
For more information, visit www.kruuse.com and http://www.videomed-gmbh.de/
Picture courtesy of:Neil Townsend MSc BVSc Cert ES (Soft Tissue) DipECVS MRCVSClinician in Equine Soft Tissue SurgeryPhilip Leverhulme Equine Hospital
The Committee heard seven charges against Dr Elefterescu. The charges were:
In September 2015, in relation to a male cat called Kitty Brown, he failed to undertake an adequate examination prior to surgery and that he undertook an unnecessary laparotomy.
In February 2016, in relation to a male cat called Storm Page, he failed to undertake an adequate clinical examination prior to anaesthesia and made dishonest or misleading entries in the clinical records stating that he had undertaken a full clinical examination.
In February 2016, in relation to a male cat called Sampson Page, he failed to undertake an adequate clinical examination prior to anaesthesia and made dishonest or misleading entries to the effect that he had undertaken a full clinical examination.
In February 2016, in relation to Tibial Plateau Levelling Osteotomy (TPLO) surgery performed on a female Bichon Frise called Lucy Allen, he failed to undertake adequate examinations into the possibility of a cranial cruciate ligament rupture or failed to record the same; performed the TPLO surgery with insufficient clinical justification; performed the surgery inadequately; failed to take steps to rectify inadequate surgery having obtained post-operative radiographs; made dishonest/ misleading entries into clinical records; and, in a letter to the RCVS on 7 August 2016, made dishonest and misleading comments.
In February 2016, in relation to a male cat called Kipper Morley, he failed to take and record a sufficiently detailed history; failed to undertake an adequate clinical examination; that, having noted the possibility that Kipper might have anaemia, he failed to make arrangements for urgent investigations to be undertaken; that, having decided to administer intravenous fluids to Kipper, failed to make arrangements urgently; and failed to keep clear, accurate and detailed clinical records.
Between September 2015 and February 2016, he failed to keep clear, accurate clinical records in relation to seven cases.
In February 2016, in relation to a male cat named Chino Biggs, he failed to undertake adequate clinical examination and dishonestly made entries in the clinical records saying that he had undertaken aspects of an examination when he had not done so.
Having heard evidence from complainants, witnesses (including expert witnesses) and the respondent himself the Committee determined that the facts of all the charges were proven – with the exception of part of Charge 6 regarding his keeping inadequate clinical records in relation to a male cat called Dax Parham.
The Committee then went on to consider whether the proven charges, both individually and cumulatively, amounted to serious professional misconduct. In relation to the first and fifth charges the Committee found that, while Dr Elefterescu’s conduct fell below what was expected of a professional veterinary surgeon – they did not constitute serious professional conduct.
In relation to the parts of the second, third, fourth, sixth and seventh charges that were found proven, the Committee determined that each constituted serious professional misconduct.
In relation to these determinations, Ian Arundale, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The respondent’s clinical failures… are very serious, amounting as they do to failures in the basics of animal care and resulting in suffering to the animal. They involve widespread breaches of the Code, including not only the obligation in relation to animal health and welfare… but also the specific obligations of the Code in relation to record keeping.
"In addition to his clinical and record keeping failures the respondent has been found to have acted dishonestly. This dishonesty would have impacted upon professional colleagues and any owner who viewed the records. It has the potential to undermine public confidence in the profession. The respondent was also dishonest in a letter written in August 2017 to his regulator."
In considering Dr Elefterescu’s sanction, the Committee took into account a number of aggravating and mitigating factors.
Aggravating factors included actual and risk of injury to animals, dishonesty, recklessness, breach of client trust, repeated misconduct and limited insight into his failings.
In mitigation the Committee considered that, at the time of the misconduct, the respondent was new to the UK, he had language difficulties which resulted in communication problems, that he was unfamiliar with UK veterinary computer systems and procedures, that he is of good character, that he has taken steps to avoid a repetition of his misconduct and that there have been no subsequent complaints since the dates of the matters in the charges.
However, the Committee found that, in light of the seriousness of the charges found against him, the only sufficient sanction was to direct the Registrar to remove Dr Elefterescu’s name from the Register.
Mr Arundale, commenting on the sanction, said: "The respondent’s misconduct involved very serious departures from the professional standards set out in the RCVS Code…. In particular, the unnecessary surgery (both the initial and revision) carried out on Lucy Allen constituted very serious harm to an animal. The Committee considers that the respondent’s lack of insight into his failings, and his wholly unjustified confidence in his abilities constitute an ongoing risk to animal welfare. In these circumstances, the Committee has determined that the only sanction which is appropriate and proportionate, in order to ensure the welfare of animals, the public interest and the reputation of the profession, is to direct the respondent’s removal from the Register."
Dr Elefterescu has 28 days in which he can lodge an appeal with the Privy Council regarding the Disciplinary Committee’s decision.
Neptra contains florfenicol, an antibiotic which Bayer says is ideal for dealing with the Staphylococcus pseudintermedius found in the majority of otitis externa cases, together with terbinafine hydrochloride, which is effective against Malassezia pachydermatis, and mometasone furoate, a corticosteroid that provides anti-inflammatory activity to improve patient comfort.
A single, 1ml dose in each affected ear treats dogs of all breeds and in trials, continuous clinical improvement was seen until day 28.
Neptra was approved for use in the USA back in 2015, where it has apparently gone down a bit of a storm, becoming the number one product for otitis externa in the country, with over 4.7 million doses prescribed since 2017.
Dr Ken Kwochka, DVM, DACVD, President of the World Association for Veterinary Dermatology (pictured right) said: "This solution is trusted by thousands of vets across the USA, it’s now time for UK vets to benefit from the convenience and confidence Neptra offers. Neptra is the ideal and easier way to treat the majority of otitis externa cases you see and can (and should) be used first-line."
Donna Tomlinson, Senior Brand Manager at Bayer said: "It’s not every day that you’re able to launch a solution that has the potential of Neptra to change treatment practices for the better and improve outcomes for dogs. Across the UK and Europe, our brilliant team at Bayer have put months of effort into this launch and developed an exciting marketing support package. Our veterinary business managers are already out on the road, ready to talk to you all about it."
Neptra is available now to order as one SKU via your regular wholesaler or speak to your Bayer veterinary business manager.
Practice support materials are also available via www.vetcentre.bayer.co.uk.
The VetSurgeon Expert Forums were originally designed to overcome the weaknesses inherent in other social media platforms like Facebook, such as the lack of accountability, transparency and provenance for the clinical information and opinions being shared.
However it is hoped that the new resource will prove to be especially helpful to general practitioners who find themselves working in isolation because of the coronavirus pandemic.
For them, advice from some of the leading experts in the country could prove a real lifeline.
To use the new Expert Help forums, login and visit VetSurgeon.org/experts (under ‘Forums’ in the main navigation). Alternatively, navigate to the relevant area under ‘Interests’ and go from there.
Type your question in brief, then add any further detail in the box beneath.
Your question is then emailed to a number of experts in the relevant field, who’ll reply when they are able.
All questions are added to a knowledgebank which other members of the profession can read and refer to, but only you, the question author and the experts can reply.
This means you can be assured of a friendly, helpful and knowledgeable reply and it won’t get drowned in a sea of ‘me too’ posts.
Importantly, you can see the provenance for all advice given in the Expert Forums: click the name of the expert to read their full professional profile and qualifications.
There’s also a red ‘Claim CPD’ button at the top of the thread. Use that to claim your question as CPD, or just to keep a record of your questions and the answers (which you can later review in your profile).
Once you have had your answer(s), you must click ‘Verify Answer’ under any that you feel have answered your question. This adds the referral practitioner’s logo and gives them points on a leaderboard of most active and helpful experts. So it’s a nice way to say 'thank you' for their time and effort.
The expert forums are being rolled out, discipline by discipline, over the coming weeks.
Anaesthesia and Pain Management is now live, with experts like Jo Murrell from Highcroft Referrals, Dan Holden from County Vet Clinic, Gwen Covey-Crump, and Carl Bradbrook from Anderson Moores answering questions.
In Cardiology, we have the ever-helpful Dave Dickson from HeartVets and Roger Wilkinson joined by Chris Linney from Willows, Mike Holgate, Mark Patteson from HeartVets, and Nuala Summerfield from Virtual Veterinary Specialists.
In Dentistry, we have Peter Southerden from Eastcott, Norman Johnston from DentalVets, Evelyn Barbour-Hill, Bob Partridge from VetDentist and Rob Davis from Moreton Hall all there to lend a hand.
You'd be hard-pushed to find a more helpful, friendly or more knowledgable bunch of people, so do make the most of this new resource. Remember, there is no such thing as a stupid question, and posting it here adds it to a knowledgebank for everyone else and allows both you and the expert to claim CPD time.
Post your question here!
If you are an expert in one of the veterinary disciplines on VetSurgeon and would like to contribute to an expert forum, please first watch this explanatory video for referral practitioners and then contact: support@vetsurgeon.org.
The RCVS Disclipinary Committee has severely reprimanded and warned as to her future conduct a Brighton-based veterinary surgeon who failed to maintain a proper boundary between her professional and personal relationships with a client.
The eight charges considered at the seven-day hearing involved Marie-Louise Schlemm's treatment of Ratszy, a 16-year old Jack Russell with chronic renal failure, and her relationship with the dog's owner, Ms B, who suffers from mental illness, during May 2010. At that time, Ms Schlemm was employed by Coastway Veterinary Group in Brighton to work for its out-of-hours veterinary services, Vetcall, to which Ratszy had been referred by the PDSA.
The College alleged that Ms Schlemm deliberately misled Ms B as to the condition and prognosis of Ratszy, removed the dog without Ms B's consent, and behaved unprofessionally and inappropriately in her dealings with Ms B. Other allegations were that that she had suggested Ms B tell the PDSA a fabricated story in order that she might see the dog again; made an offer that Ms B and Ratszy could come and stay with her at her home; required Ms B to attend a supermarket car park at 12.30am to collect Ratszy; and took money from Ms B other than for the purposes of legitimate veterinary treatment.
The Committee found both Ms Schlemm and Ms B to be truthful and honest witnesses, and that Ms B's recollection was given to the best of her ability. However, where recollections differed, it relied on contemporaneously prepared clinical records to find that Ms Schlemm did not mislead Ms B to the effect that the dog was not dying. Although recognising that Ms Schlemm's actions were misguided the Committee found that the dog was not taken without consent.
Furthermore, the Committee said in making the offer that Ms B and Ratszy might come and stay with her, Ms Schlemm was wholly misguided and had blurred the distinction between personal and professional activities. By this time, she was aware Ms B suffered from mental illness and so should have allowed the mental health services to take control of the situation. Similarly, she should not have required Ms B to meet in a car park to collect Ratszy, behaviour the Committee described as bizarre and which had compromised Ratszy's welfare. Although the Committee gave Ms Schlemm the benefit of the doubt as to whether money taken was, in fact, to pay for alternative therapy for Ms B, she did not deal with the matter openly and it was a clear breach of trust to both Ms B and Vetcall.
In mitigation, the Committee was satisfied that Ms Schlemm now had a genuine insight into her lack of judgement in her relationship with Ms B, had reflected on the decision of the Committee and fully accepted the "utter stupidity" of her actions. She had also attended courses on teamwork and managing client relationships, and had established good working relationships in a new practice.
Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "While the Committee has accepted that Ms Schlemm was motivated by good intentions towards Ms B and Ratszy, she breached the trust of both of Ms B and Vetcall in the way in which she behaved [and] acted in a misguided way in dealing with a vulnerable client, who was suffering from mental illness. In light of the serious nature of its findings, the Committee does not consider it appropriate to take no further action. The Committee has concluded that Ms Schlemm should be severely reprimanded for her conduct and given a warning as to her future conduct [and] reminds the profession of the importance of maintaining a proper boundary between the professional and personal relationships of client and veterinary surgeon."
The RVN Disciplinary Committee of the RCVS has removed an Armagh-based nurse from the Register after finding that she'd entered the details of four injections into clinical records when she had no reasonable basis for doing so.
During the four-day hearing, the Committee considered two alternative charges against Ms Tracy Nicholl (nee Wilson) relating to her actions on 3 February 2011, whilst employed by O'Reilly & Fee veterinary surgery, Armagh.
Ms Nicholl was alleged by the College to have administered Dolethal, a pink liquid containing pentabarbitone and used for euthanasia, to a dog called Butch without being directed to do so. It was also alleged that she had made dishonest entries into the dog's clinical records, or had administered drugs without a veterinary surgeon's prescription.
Ms Nicholl was alleged to have administered the Dolethal via a fluid bag and giving set on the morning of 3 February, which she denied. The Committee found that, although a veterinary surgeon believed that she saw pink fluid in the line, uncertainties in the surrounding circumstances made the Committee unable to be sure the line contained pink liquid. Expert and forensic evidence revealed Butch had received Dolethal, but not the route of administration or the timing. Therefore the Committee could not be sure Ms Nicholl administered the Dolethal and dismissed this charge.
However, the Committee found that Ms Nicholl did enter on Butch's clinical records that four drugs had been injected, when she had neither administered them nor been told that the drugs had been administered. Although she denied making the entries in evidence submitted to the hearing, in evidence from an interview with the College on 11 July 2011 she had admitted this and her initials were on the record entries.
The Committee noted these injections would be chargeable, and was satisfied the public would regard making these incorrect entries as dishonest. As Ms Nicholl was a highly experienced, senior nurse who also lectured to veterinary nursing students, the Committee was sure she knew she was acting dishonestly. Further, she had breached her responsibilities to clients by failing to maintain accurate case records, and the entries raised potential animal welfare issues. In mitigation, her actions affected no animal's actual welfare, and there was no evidence that Ms Nicholl had made any financial gain or repeated her conduct.
Ms Judith Webb, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee, said: "In addition to the fact that the charge involved dishonesty, there were a number of other aggravating features. The Respondent has not demonstrated any recognition of the seriousness of the record entry allegation, specifically the importance of keeping proper records ... It is in the wider public interest and to protect the reputation of the veterinary nursing profession that the Respondent's name should be removed from the Register."
Ms Nicholl is the first Registered Veterinary Nurse to be struck off since the introduction of the title.
Ms Burrows faced 11 charges against her.
The first alleged that in November 2017 she had allowed or caused her horse to be re-registered at the Cardiff equine practice where she worked under a different patient name, and had failed to consolidate and cross-reference this new record with the previous one.
The second charge alleged that between November 2017 and March 2018 she failed to make entries into the practice’s clinical records for her horse about its epistaxis and the investigations into the condition.
Charges 3 to 9 related to various telephone conversations and email exchanges Ms Burrows had with NFU Mutual in 2018 in which she failed to disclose the horse’s full clinical history and knowingly gave false statements to the effect that the horse’s condition of epistaxis had started more recently than it actually had. These charges also include asking an administrative colleague in the practice to, unknowingly, provide the insurance company with false information.
Charge 10 alleged that Ms Burrows asked a colleague to provide incorrect and/or dishonest information to the insurance company about the date of an endoscopy that had been performed on her horse in or around November or December 2017.
The final charge (Charge 11) alleged that, in regard to all previous charges, Ms Burrows had acted dishonestly.
At the outset of the hearing Ms Burrows admitted to Charges 2 to 9, as well as charge 11 in so far as it related to these charges.
However, she denied that she had allowed the creation of a new record for her horse under a different name for the purposes of concealing its clinical history or that she had attempted to induce a veterinary surgeon colleague to provide false information about the treatment of her horse.
Nevertheless, the Committee found all the charges proven.
Next the Committee considered whether the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In doing so the Committee considered the pre-meditated nature of Ms Burrows’ conduct in setting up the second record for her horse with the intention of benefitting financially by providing false information. Likewise, the Committee considered that Ms Burrows had abused her professional position by asking her colleague who was a practice administrator to, unknowingly, provide false information to the insurance company on her behalf and in attempting to induce a veterinary surgeon colleague to lie on her behalf.
The Committee found her guilty of serious professional misconduct in respect of all 11 charges and stated that her conduct could be characterised as deplorable.
Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee noted that, in the event, no actual harm had been occasioned to any animal or person. There had been an attempt at, but no actual, financial gain. The Committee had not been informed of any previous regulatory findings against Ms Burrows. In addition Ms Burrows had made some, limited, admissions to the College in her responses to it and has admitted a number of the Charges, including her dishonesty, before the Committee. Ms Burrows has apologised for that to which she admitted and in the Committee’s view has displayed a limited degree of insight.”
Having determined serious professional misconduct, the Committee then went on to consider the appropriate sanction for Ms Burrows. Ahead of the decision she made representations to the Committee in which she acknowledged that she had let the profession down, multiple breaches of the Code, and highlighted that her actions had prejudiced the delicate relationship between the public and the profession and had tarnished the reputation of the profession. She asked the Committee for the opportunity for a second chance, saying that she had started her own veterinary practice now and that honesty and integrity were now integral to her practice.
The Committee also heard several character witnesses as well as testimonials from both professional colleagues and clients attesting to her integrity and capabilities as a veterinary surgeon. Ms Burrows’ counsel also highlighted that at the time of the misconduct she was young and relatively new to veterinary practice and had been going through a difficult time, both professionally and personally.
Ultimately, however, the Committee decided that removal from the Register was the most appropriate and proportionate sanction.
Cerys Jones, speaking on behalf of the Committee, said: “In the view of the Committee, honesty in a veterinary surgeon is a fundamental professional issue, and that is the case regardless of age and experience. The public, other professionals and insurers all at times rely on the word of a professional veterinary surgeon to honestly attest to matters of importance. All need to be able to trust the veterinary surgeon. Any departure from a standard of honesty undermines public confidence in the profession.
“In the Committee’s determination, Ms Burrows had shown a repeated disregard for the principle of honesty on a number of occasions when dealing with the insurance claim in her telephone calls. Moreover, the Committee had found that Dr Burrows had caused or allowed the preparation of documentation concealing the full history of her horse and attempted to involve another professional in the matter.
“The Committee had found that Ms Burrows’ dishonesty had extended over approximately five months, and she had had several opportunities to resile from it. However, it took until [a colleague] raised the issue with Ms Burrows before she took steps to end the claim.
“The Committee determined that Ms Burrows had put her own interests ahead of those of the public and undermined the trust that underpins the relationship with insurers.”
She added: “In the Committee’s determination, the repeated dishonesty in the case in all the circumstances could not be met other than by directing that Ms Burrows’ registration be removed from the Register.”
Ms Burrows has 28 days from being informed of the outcome of the hearing to appeal the Committee’s decision.
The full findings for the case can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
A 15-minute consultation with Online Vets on the IVC-owned www.myfamilypet.co.uk website costs £16, compared to the three other players in this marketplace: Pawsquad, Vet AI and Firstvet, which all charge £20.
The other significant difference is that Online Vets is backed by IVC's extensive network of 800+ bricks and mortar practices, so they have somewhere to refer cases that need treatment and they undertake to deduct the online consultation fee from the final bill if that happens.
Douglas Veitch MRCVS, Head of Online Vets (the affable-looking chap pictured right) said: "In human healthcare, an online doctor can prescribe medication to their patients. However under the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) legislation, vets cannot do that. This impacts the wallets of our clients, as it will often mean they pay twice; once for the online consultation and then for the subsequent consultation in practice. That’s why we have launched our Online Vets service as the digital vet team can refer into one of our 800+ practices and ensure the initial online fee is deducted from the bill."
That sounds like a bit of a pop at the RCVS being responsible for legislation that impacts clients' wallets, so it might be worth reflecting whether the GMC would allow doctors to prescribe medication online if their patients were all deaf, mute and had a mental age of less than one, which I assume is the intellectual capacity of the average dog.
That's by the by. It is this ability to offset Online Vets' consultation fee against any treatment needed offline that forms the basis of IVC's claim to save pet owners nearly £100 per annum on veterinary bills.
Of the other online service providers, only one (Vet AI) undertakes to refund the fee if offline treatment is then required. Online Vets says pets typically need 5 consultations per annum, and if they all need a subsequent consultation (and presuming none use Vet AI), £20 x 5 would therefore be down the drain, or, as the French would say, hors de la fenêtre.
I think that claim is a bit punchy myself. It would be interesting to see the research that shows pets need 5 consultations per annum. My dog rarely sees the vet more than once in a year. And even if it did, I'll bet at least a couple of those consultations could be handled online.
But really, isn't this a bit of a red herring? The truth is that all these services are still in their infancy, and online consultations still make up only a tiny fraction of the overall number of veterinary interactions. So whether you'll actually save a few quid using Online Vets vs one of the others is probably not the point.
The really big savings for pet owners will surely come when bricks and mortar veterinary practices, IVC included, offer online consultations between clients and their normal vet, who can already prescribe medications remotely if the animal has been seen recently enough. That'll save me a lot more than £20 a visit.
In the meantime, if I was using one of these services to consult about my dog (and I might), the bigger deal for me would be to have the reassurance of knowing the advice was backed by a bricks and mortar practice, which is why I find it curious that the only mention of IVC (and all its resources) on the www.myfamilypet.co.uk website is, er, in the cookie policy.
Virbac says that this means that irrespective of previous vaccination history, only a single injection of the vaccine given 12-3 weeks prior to calving is required to boost cow serum and therefore colostrum antibody levels against rotavirus, coronavirus and E. coli (K99) - the major and most common viral and bacterial causes of diarrhoea in dairy and beef calves.
Dr. Rosie Reyneke, Farm Animal Technical Product Manager at Virbac said: "Bovigen Scour is the most recent single shot scour vaccine on the market, and now with the ease of use afforded by the new 1-shot protocol, will allow our customers to engage more deeply with farmers to develop the use of vaccination as a preventative means to improve the welfare of the UK’s dairy and beef calves."
Virbac says it has worked closely with the UK veterinary profession to ensure that the product performs well under UK conditions. Rosie added: "2018 marks 50 years of Virbac working in partnership with the veterinary profession around the world, and in following our traditions, we have engaged a number of prominent dairy and beef veterinary practices to test this, from John O’Groats in the north to Land’s End in the south. We wanted to be absolutely sure our vaccine meets the highest possible expectations of beef and dairy farmers across the UK”.
The new division has been granted a ManSA license by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD).
Glesni Owen, Head of Veterinary Sales, said: “Veterinary professionals across the world increasingly prescribing CBD products to their patients for a variety of health conditions including osteoarthritis, epilepsy, pain management and a variety of other behavioural issues.
“Research into the use of CBD is advancing daily which provides veterinary professionals with an increased knowledge base to help clients make informed decisions about treating their pets.”
Pets Choice have been working closely with veterinary professionals in the United States where CBD therapy is far more widely prescribed, collating and sharing the latest supporting evidence and guidance for vets here in the UK to feel comfortable discussing it with their clients.
Glesni said: “We have developed a CPD-accredited educational webinar and also recorded a podcast with the Vet Times, interviewing highly-respected US-based veterinarian Jeffrey Powers, who has extensive experience prescribing CBD to his patients.”
https://petschoice-2.wistia.com/medias/cn1g7dr2rc
For further information, contact specials@petschoice.co.uk or 01934 831000.