Test and Treat, a company which develops point of care tests for the detection of urinary tract infections, has launched U-Treat, a urine test which it says could change the way veterinary surgeons approach cases of suspected urinary infections in dogs and cats.

The patient-side test identifies urinary tract infection (UTI) and the best antibiotics to treat the condition, with the results produced in minutes.

Test and Treat says the new test means that vets will no longer have to treat empirically while a urine sample is sent to an external laboratory. Nor will you have to risk delaying treatment until the results are received. 

In addition, the company says that the test will help support the responsible use of antibiotics, which is particularly important given that Enterococci strains identified in canine urinary infections have been found to be resistant to three or more antimicrobials¹.

U-treat is a two-part test. The first part of the test detects the presence of a urinary infection. The second part of the test looks at antibiotic susceptibility, showing the best choice of antibiotic and identifying those that won't work due to antimicrobial resistance. 

Using the principles of bioluminescence, U-Treat removes host cell ATP before lysing bacterial cell walls to release bacterial ATP, which is then detected using a luminometer. The initial detection of infection test takes five minutes and the susceptibility test takes 30 minutes.

Clinical evaluation of the test in cats and dogs was carried out at University of Tennessee in conjunction with Prof. David Bemis of Cornell University. The company says U-Treat demonstrated high levels of sensitivity (97.1%) and specificity (92%), compared to lab tests. 

The test is currently validated for use in dogs and cats and is being investigated for use in horses. While the test will launch first in the veterinary world, it also has scope to cross over into human medicine where there is potential to use it in general practice, paediatric and geriatric care.

Ron Turner, CEO and Scientific Director of Test and Treat said: "We've already sent our first orders to the US and have being talking at veterinary conferences about the technology - so we know vets are keen to get access to this new diagnostic test. Fast, reliable and accurate results mean that it's easier to put together a rational treatment plan that they can be very confident will work because they have the evidence."

Test and Treat is based near Newmarket in Suffolk and orders for the test are now being taken from veterinary practices in the UK. Full training will be given and the desk-top equipment (incubator, luminometer and reader) required to run the test can be supplied.

The company, which has attracted government enterprise funding, is also interested in hearing from veterinary surgeons who might be interested in investing in the technology and helping to expand its use.

To place an order, contact James Turner, General Manager on 01638 501974, email: jamest@tandtreat.com or visit http://www.tandtreat.com.

Reference

1. https://www.msdvetmanual.com/pharmacology/systemic-pharmacotherapeutics-of-the-urinary-system/bacterial-urinary-tract-infections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

The PDSA has announced that it is to close its Pet Practice service (PPS) scheme, through which around 30,000 pet owners on low incomes have been able to access free veterinary treatment delivered through private practices.

Instead, eligible clients are being invited to join PDSA Pet Care, a new scheme costing £4.50 per month which entitles them to veterinary consultation, one primary vaccination course or booster each year (including a health check), a 20% discount on qualifying treatments in private practice, access to a nurse-led 24/7 triage service and preferential rates on PDSA pet insurance. 

The PDSA says that pet owners and practices registered to the current Pet Practice service have been informed directly about the changes, which are being introduced over the next 12 months, as the current service is gradually phased out.

PDSA Director of Veterinary Services, Richard Hooker, said: "Following the review it was clear that the PDSA Pet Practice model was no longer financially sustainable for the charity in its existing form. However, it was important to many practices and PDSA to identify how we can best continue to offer some help to pet owners who live outside the catchment area of our Pet Hospital network and who have a need for affordable veterinary care and advice. 

"We are grateful to all those in the profession who contributed to the development of the new scheme. It provides a more sustainable way in which to support households on low incomes across the UK. We are hopeful that practices will look to work with us to support pets and owners in their local communities by participating in the replacement scheme.

"We are mindful that any changes to our service can have an impact on some pet owners and our colleagues in the profession. This is why we have consulted on these moves and put measures in place to support those most affected."

Clients currently using the Pet Practice service who have a pet with a lifelong chronic condition will continue to receive some financial support towards the cost of their pet’s ongoing care and treatment via the PDSA Chronic Voucher scheme, which offers £25 per month towards the ongoing care of their pet for its lifetime.

The charity says it is also looking at a number of specific locations, where existing clients and their pets could supported by its Pet Hospital network when the current Pet Practice service closes.  

Richard Hooker added: "The changes to the Pet Practice service are part of a much wider review of PDSA charitable services carried out this year. We have also made changes to our Pet Hospital service: reducing the number of eligible pets that owners can register for free treatment, from three to one, and withdrawing our Pet Treatment Fund.

"These important steps ensure that our available funds are targeted as effectively as possible, achieving our charitable aims of preventing illness, educating pet owners and treating sick animals.

"As a charity we receive no Government funding and rely on the generosity of our supporters and clients to run our services, which cost more than £60 million each year to fund."

The Veterinary Record has published new research which shows that one in seven vets is likely to be burnt-out within 10 years of qualifying.

The study was conducted by a team of Dutch researchers led by Nicole Mastenbroek (pictured right) from the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine at Utrecht University.

They noted that veterinary surgeons' psychological wellbeing has been the subject of several studies in different countries in recent years, with some evidence suggesting that male vets are less prone to distress, anxiety, and depression. They wanted to gauge the level of burn-out and engagement with work among vets that had graduated within the past decade, and to assess whether gender or years since graduation are influential factors.

The researchers say they based their approach on the job demands-resources (JD-R) questionnaire, which balances out negative (burn-out) and positive (engagement) aspects of wellbeing associated with work. However, they tailored it specifically for veterinary surgeons, on the grounds that every profession has unique risk factors for burn-out.

The questionnaire was emailed to 1,790 vets who had qualified in The Netherlands between 1999 and 2009, with the final analysis based on the responses of 860, almost three quarters (73%) of whom were women.

Levels of exhaustion and cynicism - both of which are associated with burn-out - were significantly lower than those in a random sample of the Dutch working population. But so too was the level of work engagement.

The responses showed that one in seven respondents (14%) was burnt-out within 10 years of qualifying.

The researchers say that if the criteria for burn-out that are normally used for the Dutch workforce are applied, then the responses would indicate that 27% of the survey respondents were burnt-out.

Women also seemed to reach burn-out faster. Almost one in five (18%) of the female respondents was burnt-out within five years of graduating.

Male vets tended to be less exhausted and more engaged with work than their female peers. Job demands associated with exhaustion were work/home life balance and workload, while job resources linked to engagement included opportunities for professional development and "skills discretion" - the ability to use and develop skills on the job.

Researchers says that behavioural traits explained more of the variance in levels of work engagement between male and female vets than in levels of exhaustion.

Self-belief in one's abilities (self-efficacy) and a proactive stance are linked to work engagement in the JD-R approach. But women vets rated themselves as less effective, optimistic, proactive and assertive than did their male peers.

British Veterinary Association President Robin Hargreaves said: "These findings are worrying but sadly not surprising. We know that a burn out and other manifestations of poor mental wellbeing in veterinary professionals of both sexes are a well-recognised problem in the UK and they are a constant concern to BVA.

"The suggestion of an increased susceptibility to burn out amongst female vets adds to that concern with the increasing proportion of women in the profession."

Earlier this month, veterinary surgeon Matthew Wilkinson caused a storm after giving a controversial interview to the Daily Mail to promote his book: On The Destiny Of Species. VetSurgeon member Martin Jones has read the book to find out whether the book supports the allegations. Here is his review ... 

I can't deal with hypocrisy (and if I do it I want it pointed out), especially when it leads to more suffering.
Matthew Watkinson, on his own fishsnorkel blog

Being subjective isn't about evidence, it's about feelings, and the most fundamental part of being subjective is the projection of extrinsic values...... i.e. X means Y to me so I will assume X means Y to X as well
On the Destiny of Species, p.17

...it should be perfectly obvious that feelings can corrupt perspective and warp reality.
On the Destiny of Species, p.18

I can only say that you make me ashamed to be human.
On the Destiny of Species, p.112

On the Destiny of Species is the Book of Matthew Watkinson. It's a piece of Matthew himself: his theories, his feelings, his world view. It's the document at the centre of the storm, the cause (and topic) of much argument recently, here and on a wider stage. Matthew has attacked the veterinary profession, if not quite by going through the front door, then at least by coming in the windows. He's put his name to the accusations, has been robust in defending them and has inarguably stood by his principles. The response has not, I think, surprised him; but it may have surprised some of us. Despite not having actually read the book, many people have felt qualified to comment - often with some force.

So, in the interests of objectivity I volunteered to read the thing, and to apply some scrutiny to what the man is actually saying; we're all agreed - including Matthew - that the Daily Mail did a poor job on his behalf, reducing his argument in the minds of its readers to an attack on veterinary ethics and profits. Matthew clearly wishes to say more, so why not listen?

Before we start, I'd like to point out that I'm not here to perform a hatchet job on behalf of the veterinary profession. When I asked Matthew for a copy, I was quite open that I might hate it, and that I would say so, but that if I didn't then equally I would say so. So here goes.

Matthew kicks off by defining objectivity and subjectivity; former good, latter bad. Science and reasoning right, emotion and hypocrisy wrong. As with what is to come, he doesn't hold back on this score. However, if this was to be an objective review, in which prose, style and accessibility of content were examined, then it would be fairly short and not particularly complimentary. The typographical errors start on line two and batter the more sensitively tuned reader pretty much continuously to the end. It's rambling, poorly edited, and repetitive for much of its length (the work would decently fit into a book half its current size). It fails to engage the reader on any level that isn't centred on shared anger.

But to concentrate on the book's failing as a work of literature would be to ignore the message, and that's surely what we're here for. The theories and arguments therein are what should concern us, and I'll attempt to review them below.

First, the surprises, in particular that vets feature hardly at all. Our complicity in propagating recessive genes is tackled early on, and whether or not we feel responsible as individuals, it can't be denied that this section is one of the book's successes. The vitriol that Matthew pours into modern farming, and at the breeders behind some of our more extreme patients, is genuine and heartfelt, and he might quite validly have expanded here. Admittedly some of his conclusions are rather worrying, if only for their undeniable plausibility to the layman:

Similarly, in dogs, the congenital heart defect patent ductus arteriosus could not have become a heritable risk without veterinary surgeons

The statement shows a disturbing lack of understanding of the way that recessive genes flow through populations, with a clear implication that we fix 'em up (although I suspect almost none of us could ever attempt the feat) so that they can get back to breeding.

The book is actually about lack of objectivity in conservation, and the inconsistency in preserving a species because of its attractiveness, often at the expense of less amiable species. Matthew espouses the view that we are essentially puny humans, and that nothing we do really matters. I know now that he is Darwin's biggest fan, doesn't believe in God and is dismissive of creationists, doesn't believe that any animals reliant on conservation actually appreciate the fact, and does believe that all animals should be viewed in terms of their ability to adapt and exploit, rather than their usefulness to us:

.... conservation has nothing to do with extinct animals and everything to do with the way some people feel about extinct animals

Matthew sets himself up as the crusader and lone voice of reason, as an unequivocal judge of those who stand in the way of his theories. Among these are pretty much all conservationists, quite a number of biological and global warming scientists and anybody who indulges in post-rationalisation (those who use new evidence to retrospectively confirm their beliefs). And then he goes and says:

My decision to study veterinary medicine was based on the naïve assumption that it would involve the pragmatic application of objective selection principles

Really? At sixteen, I remember liking animals and wanting to impress girls. Those who live by the sword, Matthew. His approach to people who might seek a different view is robust, to say the least:

peace-promising Harp Seal fanatic Rebecca Aldworth.... the chief scientist of the IUCN has completely forgotten, or never actually known, that species don't evolve themselves in the right direction..... despite their own quite ludicrous beliefs...... but to anyone with half a brain...... Honestly, what the hell is wrong with these people...... is obviously controlled by idiots...... thus it should be face-punchingly obvious.....

All of which contrasts nicely with the statement made at the start of the book:

I believe that ethical diversity is as natural as biological diversity, but either way, I'm not preaching

The book makes huge promises to "conclusively destroy the empirical basis for almost everything the conservation community has ever said." It fails to do so, quite spectacularly. Matthew's interpretation of both the science and the motivation of conservation (and remember, in being objective, we should be seeking evidence) is deeply flawed and he resorts to the kind of mudslinging that ends in rubbish fights behind the bike sheds. On the more recent efforts to conserve cod stocks by harvesting other species in preference, he comes to an embarrassingly asinine conclusion:

'Atlantic Pollock...can be distinguished from cod by their greenish hue.' 119

Is that it? Are the 'stewards' really telling us to kill Pollack instead of Cod because Pollack have a 'greenish hue'?

Yes. They are.

Really, Matthew? You're actually claiming that fishermen catch Pollack because they're colour-biased, rather than because this population may currently be harvested without threat to its viability? Yes, you are. In fact, you do: it's right there on page 72.

Similarly, Matthew isn't above misappropriating the views of others to prove his point. Here, on the conservation groups which appeal to the public for funds:

Surely they don't mean the end of climate change, and rampant habitat destruction, and rapid population growth, and extreme poverty in many areas of the world, and global food shortages, and extinction threats etc. etc.

If they're promising salvation, I guess they do, and I'm sure they really believe it too. In the words of Richard Dawkins:

'...these people actually believe what they say they believe.' 376

OK, so Professor Dawkins was talking about religious fundamentalists, rather than wildly optimistic nature 'managers', but faith is faith regardless of what it's making up on the spot.

I wonder what Richard Dawkins would think about having his thoughts hijacked to somebody else's agenda? Post-rationalisation, Matthew.

Conclusions that Matthew draws from the statistics he presents are prone to error:

2 million dairy cows will suffer at least 3.1 million cases of disease every year, and if you share the incidence risk equally, each individual has a 155% chance of getting sick every year.

Perhaps I should repeat that, for all those who think life should be preserved at all costs:

If you share the incidence risk equally, each individual dairy cow has a 155% chance of getting [sic] each year.

Another stick which Matthew uses to beat the reader: the phrase 'perhaps I should repeat that'. It can be a nice conceit, a device to use sparingly when one has a show-stopping point to make; by the fourth or fifth instance, it had me clenching my teeth. The valid point here, that lameness in cattle is one of the greater scandals of modern farming (and that the RSPCA isn't entirely objective in its approach to animal welfare), is lost in the bungling of the message.

Possibly the least successful portion of the book is where Matthew attempts to take on climate change and the science behind it. Now, I'm not sure that either Matthew or I are equipped to take this on, and there is a fair amount of confusion evident as a result, not to mention some self-contradiction about the importance of the role of carbon dioxide. He also clings to the quaint notion that because the earth hasn't died yet, it won't. It brings to mind the apocryphal story of the Bronx housewife, on being arrested for murdering her husband, "Whaddya mean - I stabbed him loadsa times before and he never died".  It's pretty likely that when the human race kills itself off, plenty of other lifeforms will flourish - but the simple facts are that we don't know how and when we're going to do it, or how much we'll destroy on the way out. I was particularly tickled by Matthew's assertion that dumping nuclear waste into the rainforests is

.....a good plan that will inevitably fall on deaf ears

In asserting that all lives must end, but Life will continue indefinitely (neatly ignoring the principle that entropy will eventually win, but not for a little while yet), Matthew aims to apply objective scrutiny to the abiding principles of conservation - and thereby expose it for the pointless sham that he believes it to be. However, such an approach to our relationship with our ecosystem and to individuals' rights to life may help to reduce sentimentality, but it's also distinctly joyless and seeks to take from humans their capacity to find pleasure in activities that don't necessarily influence their own survival. Like it or not, we've evolved to enjoy stuff, we're the dominant species and Darwinism dictates that we strive to maintain this status. If we want to save a bunch of polar bears, we can. It might help, it might not. If we want to cull jellyfish so that our marine food stocks are safeguarded, then we're following simple Darwinian principles. But as the species that made it through to master abstract thought, to at least understand the principle of altruism and to be able to seamlessly construct shields against our own hypocrisy, we can save what we like, when we like. Matthew seems to be angry about this, and that's not entirely healthy.

There are points to be made here: Matthew wants to take on the indiscriminate dog breeders; he rightly pulls up some of the eco-babble that promises total world destruction - and the unwarranted guilt that it engenders; he makes a nice point about the parallels between ecological proselytising and religion - but then ruins it by repeating it over and over again, page after page. Simply, if rather brutally, the book doesn't work for me on any level. I wasn't convinced by a single argument that I hadn't already considered and I found it an absolute chore to read.

I apologise to Matthew. I wanted to be positive and to be able to demonstrate that his actions were at least well-motivated, and had allowed him to bring something to the table with his book. But I fear that he'll be remembered simply as the man who tried to fight overcharging in the profession, and it's clear that that's the one point he hasn't actually tried to make.

One last thing. Matthew contends that we must strive for objectivity, and that we should fight hypocrisy. He makes the clear point that dead animals do not have feelings, and that to give them significance is subjective. In his words elsewhere though, he has described how in dealing with his agent, he became frustrated by the lack of pace; Darwin's great work was nearing its 150^th anniversary, and in order to tie in properly with this it was imperative that the book be published without delay.

To this, I have to say: the anniversary wasn't aware of the book's arrival. The anniversary has no thoughts on the matter; it isn't animate or sentient or in any way aware. The anniversary didn't care whether or not it was celebrated. In fact, the:

.... [celebration of the anniversary] has nothing to do with [the anniversary itself] and everything to do with the way some people feel about [anniversaries]

The subjective course of action was to sack the agent and self-publish in a hurry. The objective course of action would have been to retain the agent, forget about an arbitrary date and get a good editor in. There was the basis of a decent book here: Matthew has some things to say; unfortunately, he seems to have gone out of his way to make sure that few people want to listen, both in the writing of the book and in its promotion. What a shame.

To Matthew, I apologise again. I wish you the best of luck, I respect and defend your right to air your beliefs and if I'd liked the book, I would have said so. To others, who might accuse me of kicking a man when he's down, I say that I cannot hurt the man financially: Matthew has now started to give the book away as a pdf download. You can find it, along with debate and biography, on his blog:

http://fishsnorkel.wordpress.com/

Pets at Home has announced that following a review of its first opinion veterinary business, it now plans to buy back 55 of the practices it operates in joint venture partnerships with veterinary surgeons, of which 30 may close.

It is thought that the main reason for the cutbacks is a shortage of veterinary surgeons caused by Brexit, which is making it both harder and more expensive to recruit. 

The company has given an undertaking that the joint venture partners of the practices it offers to buy back will not be expected to repay outstanding borrowings to any parties and Pets at Home will settle any liabilities for third party bank loans and leases on behalf of the JVP.

Chief Executive Peter Pritchard said: "Since becoming the Group CEO in May, I have had the opportunity to take stock of the wider group and shape my view of our future.

"What I have found fills me with confidence. Pets at Home is a healthy business and customers are loving what we do; responding to our price repositioning, investment in digital and the amazing service delivered by our vet partners. We have the ability to offer almost everything a pet owner needs, giving us opportunities our competitors simply don't have. Which is why my vision is to develop a complete pet care company, uniting our retail and vet businesses.

"Reviewing our Vet Group has been a priority. I recognise we have grown at pace and more recently, have seen the pressure that rising costs and our fees are placing on this young business. We will need to recalibrate the business to deliver more measured growth, whilst maintaining our plan to generate significant cash profits.

"We are focused on maximising our unique assets and delivering a plan for sustainable cashflow and profit growth. Given the success of the changes we have made in Retail, I'm confident we can do this."

RIP Fleas, the environmental flea treatment from Genitrix, has been given a new formulation to ensure it acts more quickly in the killing of adult fleas and that it continues to kill fleas as they emerge from pupae for up to 12 months.

Now known as RIP Fleas Extra, the product is also licensed for the control of house dust mites in the environment for up to 12 months.

According to Genitrix, the reformulation makes RIP Fleas Extra the only environmental flea treatment to contain three active ingredients while complying fully with new EU Biocides regulations. It is the only such treatment to be fragranced and is also the only product to be presented in a volume which will cover 120 square metres – ie the size of an average house. RIP Fleas Extra contains:

Tetramethrin – a second generation synthetic pythrethroid and a contact insecticide with a rapid knockdown action of insect pests

Permethrin – a potent insecticide with a powerful contact action on insects but with a low toxicity to most mammals

Methoprene – a compound that mimics the insect juvenile hormone and arrests development of fleas and house dust mites in the environment.

When used synergistically, Tetramethrin and Permethrin provide a rapid knockdown and kill of fleas as they hatch from pupae. Studies have shown that this combination works four times more quickly than Permethrin alone.

The BEVA, the BSAVA and The Association of Veterinary Anaesthetists (AVA) say that working with the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, they've found a solution to the isoflurane shortage.

Having investigated alternative sources of isoflurane, and alternative products, the associations proposed ways that the VMD might mitigate the risks to animal welfare including consenting to the use of unlicensed (“special”) isoflurane formulations.

The VMD responded rapidly and positively. It is understood that one specials manufacturer is now intending to produce isoflurane to fill or partially fill the gap in supply. This should be available in three to four weeks. 

David Rendle, a member of BEVA’s Health and Medicines Committee commented: "BEVA has a close relationship with the veterinary pharmaceutical industry and will always work swiftly and collaboratively to help develop practical solutions to supply problems for our members."

BSAVA President Philip Lhermette praised the VMD for such prompt action. He said: "The VMD listened to our concerns and acted immediately.  By doing so they have addressed and helped to prevent any potential welfare risks associated with a lack of isoflurane."

Carl Bradbrook, AVA Junior Vice President, reminded clinicians to "seek advice when considering the use of unfamiliar anaesthetic protocols."

The associations say that the situation doesn’t give vets free rein to ignore the medicines legislation; the cascade must still be followed, and client informed consent obtained if an unregulated anaesthetic is used.

Extemporaneous products are the last tier of the cascade. Vets are expected to use either an authorised human medicine or an EU authorised veterinary medicine before an extemporaneous preparation. If, after diligent attempts to source a product higher up the cascade, the vet has not been successful they could consider using an extemporaneous preparation for the immediate need. However, should an authorised product or a human product become available vets are obliged to use it over an extemporaneous preparation.

BEVA, the BSAVA and the AVA have each produced general advice on the use of specials or anaesthesia options at  https://www.bsava.com/News/ArticleID/2535/Isoflurane-supply, https://www.beva.org.uk/Resources-For-Vets-Practices/Medicines-Guidance/Veterinary-specials  and https://ava.eu.com/ 

The RCVS Veterinary Nurse Disciplinary Committee has directed that London-based veterinary nurse Paul Chaney is removed from the Register after he was found guilty of a stealing, possessing and unlawfully administering various veterinary drugs, and that he dishonestly made and deleted clinical records about his own dog. 

Mr Chaney was charged with stealing Trazadone and Metacam from the Hampstead practice he worked at, and of unlawfully possessing Trazadone and Metacam. He was also charged with unlawfully administering Butorphanol to a dog and failing to record the administration of the drug in the dogs records. He was also charged with making and deleting false entries into the clinical records of his own dog to the effect that it had been seen by a vet at the practice and that Metacam had been prescribed. The final charge was that his conduct over the false records was dishonest and misleading. 

The Committee heard that Mr Chaney’s conduct in relation to the first two charges was discovered when, in July 2018, the Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs (Defra), accompanied by police officers, executed a warrant (for unrelated matters) on the property where he lived. During the course of the search, police officers found Metacam and Trazadone in Mr Chaney’s bedroom which did not seem to have a prescription and so Defra officers launched an investigation.

During the course of this investigation, a Defra investigator was also provided with a video and messages that indicated Mr Chaney had unlawfully administered Butorphanol to a Husky dog in frustration with the animal as it was being too noisy.

The Committee heard that, in November 2018, Mr Chaney accepted a police caution in relation to his possession of Trazadone and Metacam, and the unlawful administration of Butorphanol. The Committee also heard that following the police attending his property and finding the medicines, Mr Chaney went on to create false records at the practice in relation to the examination of his dog in order to justify his unlawful possession of the drugs.

The Committee found all the charges against Mr Chaney proven.

The Committee then went on to consider if the charges, taken both individually and in totality, amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional capacity. 

Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee had no doubt that administering a sedative to an animal that required prescription by a veterinary surgeon and then failing to record it in the clinical record with the resultant risk to the animal’s welfare due to lack of knowledge of the administration fell far below the expected standard.

"The Committee also considered that possession of prescription only medicines by a registered veterinary nurse, without the sanction of law, having stolen the same from a practice also fell far below the expected standard.

“The Committee also considered that tampering with the clinical record for a dog, in order to create a misleading impression and in doing so dishonestly, was conduct which fell far below the expected standard.

“Taken as a whole, the Committee considered that Mr Chaney’s conduct had fallen far below the expected standard.”

The Committee therefore found him guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional capacity in relation to all seven charges.

It next went on to consider what sanction, if any, to impose taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors.

In considering the aggravating factors, the Committee took into account that Mr Chaney’s conduct had presented a risk of injury to the animal and that much of his conduct was pre-meditated. It also considered that Mr Chaney’s conduct involved a breach of trust to both the practice where he was employed and the owner of the Husky, and it was also an abuse of position in gaining access to and stealing medication. Lastly, because the charges related to two separate incidents, there was a common thread in Mr Chaney disregarding rules on veterinary medicines.

In mitigation, the Committee considered that Mr Chaney had reflected on and gained some insight into  his behaviour, and acknowledged he had made admissions at the outset of the hearing, including apologising for and showing regret about aspects of his conduct.

However, the Committee did not believe he had addressed his understanding of the effect that this conduct had on the risk to animals, the standards of the profession or the maintenance of public confidence in the profession. In mitigation the Committee also considered a number of positive character references and his previous good character.

Judith Way said: “The Committee determined that it would not be sufficient in the circumstances of the case, to satisfy the public interest to suspend the Respondent’s registration. In its view this case involved a serious departure from identified professional standards. The disregard had been deliberate, in relation to ignoring legislation in respect of prescription-only medication and dishonesty in stealing medication.

"There was evidence of attitudinal issues in relation to that behaviour and insufficient evidence of the development of insight. The dishonesty in relation to the clinical record relating to dog O [his own dog] had been an attempt to conceal earlier dishonesty relating to the theft of the medication. In administering the Butorphanol to dog L [the Husky], Mr Chaney had been putting his own interests in quieting the dog ahead of the dog’s interests, which would have required checking with a veterinary surgeon as to appropriate steps.

"The Committee acknowledged that, by directing removal, there would likely be professional reputational damage to Mr Chaney and possible financial loss. However, in the view of the Committee the requirements of the public interest outweighed these factors.”

Accordingly, the Registrar of the RCVS was directed to remove Mr Chaney’s name from the Register of Veterinary Nurses.

Full details can be found here: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/

Stephen Prichard has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after he was found to have taken and used controlled drugs, reported for work while unfit to do so, and ignored requests from the College to respond to the concerns raised against him.

The hearing took place in Mr Prichard's absence after he failed to respond to Colleges attempts to contact him, including by email, post, telephone and personal service of documents.

However, in its decision to proceed in Mr Prichard’s absence, the Committee confirmed that it would not hold his non-attendance against him or attach any adverse inference to that fact.

Mr Prichard was charged with taking quantities of the controlled, prescription-only drug Vetergesic from the practice’s stock other than for legitimate veterinary use. 

He was further charged that he took Vetergesic from the practice by drawing it into a syringe for the purposes of self administration, and that in doing so, his conduct was dishonest.

In another set of charges, it was alleged that on five separate occasions, Mr Prichard had attended the practice to work as a veterinary surgeon whilst unfit to do so.

The final charge related to Mr Prichard’s failure to respond adequately or at all to all reasonable requests from the RCVS for his response to concerns raised about his conduct.

At the beginning of the hearing Nicole Curtis, acting on behalf of the College, read the written evidence from 11 separate witnesses outlining the facts related to the charges against Mr Prichard, including the record of an investigative meeting held by the practice in which he admitted his theft and use of the controlled drug and following which, he was dismissed from his employment.

The Committee found all the charges proven and then considered whether they amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In terms of aggravating factors the Committee found that there was a risk of injury, recklessness, premeditated and sustained misconduct, and that there was an abuse of his professional position in accessing prescription-only controlled drugs for reasons other than legitimate veterinary use.

In mitigation, the Committee considered that he had made admissions as part of the practice’s internal disciplinary investigation.

Overall, the Committee found he had breached aspects of the Code of Professional Conduct related to honesty and integrity, making animal health and welfare his first priority, appropriate use of veterinary medicines, taking steps to address physical and mental health conditions that could affect fitness to practise, responding to reasonable requests from the RCVS, and bringing the profession into disrepute.

Therefore, the Committee found him guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to all of the charges charges.

The Committee felt that, considering the seriousness of the misconduct, removal from the Register was the most appropriate decision.

Austin Kirwan, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “This is a case involving serious dishonesty, sustained over a period of time, and conduct potentially detrimental to animal welfare, as well as wilful disregard of professional regulations.

“Regrettably, Mr Prichard’s failure to engage with the College and with the regulatory process limited the options open to the Committee.

"Notwithstanding this, Mr Prichard’s disgraceful conduct is so serious that removal from the Register is the only means of protecting animals and the wider public interest which includes the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and the upholding of standards.”

www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

Boehringer Ingelheim has launched Bovalto Respi Intranasal, an intranasal pneumonia vaccine for calves.

Bovalto Respi Intranasal protects against the two main respiratory viruses – RSV and PI3, using modified live viral strains that have been shown to protect against experimental challenge from recent field isolates¹. 

The vaccine is delivered as a single shot, from 10 days of age and provides immunity for 12 weeks, from 10 days after vaccination².

In order to overcome the challenges of effective delivery, Boehringer is offering dedicated administration packs, available directly from its ruminant specialist team.

The packs include a vaccinator, a set of nozzles that deliver the vaccine at the optimum droplet size and a soft Bovalto Respisafe applicator which fits against the calf’s nostril. The aim is to make sure that vaccination is a comfortable process for both farmer and calf, as well as addressing the challenge of the delivery of vaccine to the desired area in the nasal passages.

Correct administration of the vaccine ensures that the spray is delivered effectively to the mucosal surface and local lymphoid tissue, achieving the optimal immune response. If the droplet size is too big, the vaccine may be deposited lower in the airway and run out of the nose. If droplet size is too small then the vaccine may be carried to the back of the throat and swallowed. Time and money is spent vaccinating calves so the process needs to be as efficient as possible to give optimal protection. 

Matt Yarnall, brand manager at Boehringer Ingelheim said: "The UK BRD vaccine market is growing each year but, as a management tool, vaccination remains quite low down the list of actions, according to the 2017 Calfmatters survey.

"If adding to the Bovalto range encourages more farmers to vaccinate against pneumonia so improving calf heath and lowering antibiotic use, that can only be a step in the right direction."

References

1. Philippe-Reversat et al. (2017) Acta vet. BRNO 86: 325-332
2. Bovalto Respi Intranasal datasheet

Staff at South Wales-based, VetPartners-owned Valley Vets have gone on strike for two weeks after pay negotiations broke down earlier in the year and 94% of British Veterinary Union members at the group voted in favour of industrial action. 

VetPartners says Valley Vets has around 200 employees, less than half of which are members of the union, although the BVU says 50% are required for recognition.

Suzanna Hudson-Cooke MRCVS, Branch Chair at BVU said: “Fees at Valley Vets have increased by 25% in two years, which is hurting pet owners whilst some staff at Valley Vets are being paid so little that they’re having to use foodbanks.

“Three years ago, VetPartners CEO Jo Malone committed to paying all staff a living wage, which still hasn’t happened”

“VetPartners did increase the salaries of lower paid members by 7.27% in the last review, but this was mostly to meet its legal obligation to pay the minimum wage.”

VetPartners responded to these points saying:

"It has been and still is our aim to pay at least the real living wage to all of our employees. We have moved closer to the aim over the past three years.

"There are 20 members of the regular team that work at Valley Vets who are below the real living wage and they are paid approximately 1.6% below that level.

"Since April 2020, we have uplifted overall salary costs at Valley Vets by 31.45% before the increase in April 2024, at a time when VetPartners, like many businesses across the UK, has been hit by a sharp rise in the cost of goods and services, interest rates and rampant inflation.

"Valley Vets’ profitability has declined over the last three years.

"We have made advances over several years in improving many benefits for our teams such as life cover, health shield, sickness and enhanced maternity cover and want to continue to do so.

"We have seen mass redundancies from other large groups and we are trying to avoid this at Valley Vets.

"The BVU in Unite requested pay and condition increases initially that would have raised employment costs by over 25% and they are currently requesting increases which would raise this by 15% which would make Valley Vets unsustainable without a significant reduction in the workforce, something we are trying to avoid.” 

During annual salary reviews in 2024, we benchmarked pay for all roles within Valley Vets and they sit in the upper quartile.

"We prioritised lowest-paid team members with a 7.27% pay increase while higher paid colleagues also received an increase at a lower rate.

"We are also well aware of the affordability of care fees, and that is why we felt fees paid by our clients could not be raised any further to support significant salary increases demanded by the BVU in Unite.

The strike is due to continue till the end of July, during which time the BVU says staff are being released from the picket line as needed to provide local animals with emergency care.

Staff are not paid whilst out on strike so the BVU has started a fund, here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/PTVKVK3