Is it right to keep treating an animal just because the technology is available? This is a question that Noel Fitzpatrick, aka the BBC's Bionic Vet, will be addressing at this year's British Veterinary Association (BVA) Congress, in a debate titled 'Treatment too far?' on Friday 24^th September at 4pm.

The BVA Congress will take place in the Glasgow Marriott Hotel on 23-25 September 2010 under the theme 'Vets and the Public Good', looking at the role of veterinary surgeons in all aspects of society.

Organisers say that Congress will be a truly Scottish event, led by BVA President Professor Bill Reilly (born and bred in Glasgow and a graduate of Glasgow Vet School) with clinical CPD sessions delivered by Scotland's finest research and academic institutions.

This year also boasts a full non-clinical stream of lectures tackling employment law, management skills, and mental health.

Highlights include:

Vets and the public good: the broader perspective (Wooldridge Memorial Lecture)
Professor Stuart Reid, Dean of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Glasgow will deliver the keynote Wooldridge Memorial Lecture. He will consider the extent of the veterinary contribution to society, which extends into areas such as public health, infectious disease control, scientific research, public education, food production, national security, disaster management, care of the environment, and international development. (Fri 24 Sept, 12.15-13.25)

Pets and society: turning a blind eye to abuse?
It is nearly a decade since attention began to be drawn to evidence of links between animal abuse and domestic violence towards humans. This session will examine the dilemmas confronting practising vets, asking at what stage should suspicions of abuse be reported and to whom? (Fri 24 Sept, 11.00-12.00)

Four into one must go
Following last year's highly popular session, the UK's four CVOs will again come together to debate and discuss current issues in veterinary politics and animal health and welfare, under the chairmanship of BVA President Professor Bill Reilly. (Sat 25 Sept, 9.30-10.30)

Responsibility and cost sharing - where are we now?
This session will include a progress report from Rosemary Radcliffe, chair of the independent committee that will be advising the Government on establishing new arrangements in England, and a discussion of what this might mean for practising vets. (Sat 25 Sept, 16.00-17.00)

In addition there will be contentious issue debates on the role of vets in promoting farm animal welfare, the practical difficulties of current dangerous dogs legislation, and the role of vets as experts witnesses in cases of abuse or neglect.

Under the theme of 'public good' there will be a session looking at the role of vets in international development 'Improving the livelihoods of farmers in resource-poor countries', and a session on the zoonotic infections that impact on public health, such as E. Coli and Chlamydia, and what organisations like open farms can do to minimise the risks.

Professor Bill Reilly, President of the BVA, said: "Vets and the public good has been the theme of my presidential term because I believe that the role of vets in all aspects of society should receive more attention.

"Our Congress programme combines the world-renowned expertise of Scotland's academic and research institutes with significant topical issues of debate to capture the widest possible definition of the veterinary contribution to society."

For more information on BVA Congress 2010 (including the full agenda and online registration) visit the BVA website www.bva.co.uk/congress

Vetoquinol has revamped its Epiphen complimentary voucher scheme for testing serum levels of phenobarbital, and is offering vet practices a chance to win £100 of high street vouchers.

New voucher pads will be posted to participating veterinary practices in August.  The re-vamped scheme also includes freepost envelopes to make the free serum monitoring programme more user-friendly.

Practices are being asked to send back the old vouchers, which can be found in both the 30mg and 60mg Epiphen packs, to take part in a monthly prize draw to win £100 of high street vouchers.  To enter, return the vouchers with the practice name on the back of each voucher.  There will also be a quarterly prize draw for a "Touch Screen" client education tool.

The old vouchers should be sent to: Voucher Amnesty, Vetoquinol, Vetoquinol House, Great Slade, Buckingham Industrial Park, Buckingham, MK18 1PA.

Robert Newcombe, Senior Veterinary Surgeon at the PDSA Plymouth PetAid Hospital, has won a £50 Marks and Spencer gift card after completing a survey sent to VetSurgeon members on behalf of Swann-Morton.

57% of 283 survey respondents said that they had always used Swann-Morton, with quality and reliability ranking highly amongst the reasons (83%). The survey showed a low awareness of the Swann-Morton website at www.swann-morton.com and the fact that there is a dedicated veterinary section. The site also has an extensive product section and an interactive training section with streaming videos and downloadable PDF copies of the product literature. 

In addition, the survey found that 40% of veterinary surgeons feel that the number of surgical procedures being performed overall has increased over the last 3 years.

For further information on the full range of Swann-Morton products please contact Chris Taylor at Swann-Morton, telephone: 0114 234 4231 or email: christaylor@swann-morton.com 

Simon Dennis, lecturer in cardiology and Rob Goggs, staff clinician in emergency and critical care, both from the Royal Veterinary College have completed a gruelling four day charity bicycle ride from London to Paris.

The bike ride was in aid of Action Medical Research (AMR), a medical research charity dedicated to helping babies and children through tackling premature birth and treating sick and vulnerable babies; helping children affected by disability, disabling conditions and infections; and targeting rare diseases that severely affect many forgotten children. 

The cycling duo is aiming to raise £3,000 for this cause and have already raised about £2,400.

The race ended with 600 other cyclists riding in unison through the centre of Paris, with the watching crowd cheering the cyclists on from the streets and cars.

Simon Dennis said: "Both Rob and I are extremely pleased to have completed the cycle ride and raise money for such a worthy cause. It was a tough four days, but definitely worth it in the end, as it was an incredible once in a lifetime experience for us both."

 "We would like to thank everyone for their donations, but particularly CEVA Animal Health and Boehringer Ingelheim, who were both really generous sponsors to the charity."

If you would like to donate money to this cause please visit http://www.action.org.uk/sponsor/sgdennis

A study by Janssen Animal Health has, according to the company, demonstrated that a leading herbal wormer had no demonstrable efficacy against common poultry worms¹.

The trial, done to Good Clinical Practice (GCP) Standards, involved 48 chickens that had become naturally infected with three different poultry worms - Capillaria (Hairworm) species, Heterakis gallinarum (Caecal worm) and Ascaridia galii (Large roundworm). The birds were randomly assigned to one of three groups:

A. Flubenvet treated group
B. Herbal wormer treated group
C. Control (untreated) group.

The herbal treatment was administered for 3 days in-feed, as required by the 'on-pack' instructions and Flubenvet was given for 7 days as required on the product data sheet. Droppings were collected from individual birds and group pens at intervals for 2 weeks and examined for the presence of worm eggs

Table 1: Worm Count Summaries

The results showed that very few worm eggs were present after one 7-day treatment with Flubenvet. In contrast, those that had no treatment or the herbal treatment still had hundreds of worm eggs in their droppings, suggesting that there were still many adult egg-laying worms present inside the chickens.

Janssen says poultry keepers who rely on preparations like this particular natural wormer may well be building up problems, as the additional numbers of worm eggs in the environment add to the infection pressure and can result in greater worm burdens for their birds. Birds with high worm burdens are more likely to become ill.

• H. gallinarum - causes mild illness but also acts as a carrier for the microscopic protozoan parasite Histomonas meleagridis (Blackhead) in turkeys. The eggs of the worm can live for years in soil so this parasite can be difficult to eradicate and re-infection is common unless regular and effective worming is carried out.
• Capillaria - causes malnutrition, emaciation and anaemia in chickens and death in other poultry species.
• Ascaridia gali - causes emaciation, drop in egg production, ill thrift, anaemia, intestinal blockage and death. Occasionally the parasitic worms may be found in chicken eggs. Earthworms are a common intermediate host, particularly likely to result in parasitic infection of free-range poultry when they eat earthworms.

According to the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2009 any product making veterinary medicinal claims needs to be licensed by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. A licensed product has to show proven efficacy and safety for the animal species involved. Licensed veterinary medicines can be identified by their Vm number, which is shown on-pack. Products termed 'nutritional supplements', that are not licensed do not require the manufacturer to produce any proof of efficacy or safety. It is often easy to buy such products 'off the shelf' because they are not subject to any controls. Any poultry keeper who cares about the health and welfare of the birds is advised to think carefully about their choice of wormer and to seek advice from a vet pharmacist or Suitably Qualified Person (SQP).

¹ Evaluation of the efficacy of flubendazole in comparison with a herbal wormer in the treatment of naturally acquired infections of Ascaridia galli, Heterakis gallinarum, and intestinal Capillaria spp in Chickens, Janssen Animal Health

VetSurgeon member, Rachel Crowe is asking veterinary surgeons to help with a survey looking at the relationship between vets and drug companies.

The survey forms part of Rachel's dissertation for her MBA, titled: In harmony or out of tune? Perceptual gaps between expectations of vets and supplier.

The survey is being carried out in association with VetSurgeon.org. We've agreed to promote it to VetSurgeon members in return for being able to share the bulk of the results with our members, and, importantly, with all veterinary suppliers. Our hope is that as a result, the time you spend carrying out the survey will help influence the way drug companies do business, and help them give you a better standard of service. In addition, the survey is also being supported by Rachel's employer, Virbac Animal Health, which will have first sight of the results.

As a small thank you, everyone who completes the survey will be entered into a draw for one of 5 Marks and Spencer shopping vouchers.

Thus far, 182 members have already taken part in the survey. If you are one of the few that didn't complete it, please do, as Rachel needs as many completed surveys as possible. If you have only partially completed the survey, you should find that the system has stored your previous answers, so you won't need to start all over again.

To take part, please click here.

CEVA Animal Health has launched a double-sized version of Cyclo Spray, the company's chlorotetracycline-based treatment for the clinical symptoms of foot rot in sheep and digital dermatitis in cattle.

CEVA says that Cyclo Spray's superior spray performance makes it very cost-effective: the aerosol generates a narrow, condensed spray with limited dispersion for accurate application and minimal drip. The spray adheres cleanly and dries fast on the treatment area, to ensure that the antimicrobial has maximum efficacy within the shortest possible spray time.

CEVA adds that each spray of Cyclo Spray covers the skin with a concentration of chlorotetracycline that is thousands of times greater than is actually required to kill the causative bacteria.

The original size can is also available if required.

For further information contact CEVA Animal Health Ltd, 90 The Broadway, Chesham, Bucks, HP5 1EG.

Seventeen overseas-qualified veterinary surgeons who succeeded in passing the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Statutory Examination for Membership, have been admitted to the RCVS Register and may now practise in the UK.  

Remarkably, nearly half of them (8) were graduates of St George's University School of Veterinary Medicine (SGUSVM) in the Caribbean island of Grenada. Austin Kirwan, St George's Associate Dean of UK and Ireland Clinical Affairs said: "This outstanding result confirms the school's status as a leading international teaching institution for prospective veterinarians. Our graduates now have a proven record of high standards which is encouraging to those who follow in their footsteps."

To mark the occasion, a ceremony was held at Belgravia House for the registrants, their  friends and families. After the veterinary surgeons' names were entered into the Register, RCVS President, Mr Peter Jinman, made a short address to welcome those attending, and presented the new Members with their certificates.

"Today is a celebration not just for those registering but for all of you," he said, acknowledging the importance of the support provided to vets by their friends and family. He also encouraged those who were newly graduated to sign up for the Professional Development Phase as the route to postgraduate education, saying that "Education does not stop today; indeed it is just a closing of one chapter and tomorrow is the opening of another, for learning is a lifelong experience."

CEVA Animal Health has now introduced Colibird, the UK's first colistin-based soluble antimicrobial approved for poultry.

According to the company, colistin is an important active in the UK's antimicrobial armoury, with a potent bactericidal action against Gram-negative bacteria, including enterobacteria and more particularly E. coli. Colibird is only one of a handful of products approved for layers that has a zero egg withhold. It also has almost zero levels of resistance, even with bugs variously resistant to other antimicrobials and is easily and efficiently administered in drinking water via header tanks or dosing pumps.

For further information please contact the large animal sales team or CEVA Animal Health Ltd, 90 The Broadway, Chesham, Bucks, HP5 1EG.

The Recruitment Investment Group (RIG) has established a new recruitment agency that specialises in the supply of skilled professionals to the veterinary animal health market.

The newly formed RIG Animal Health Recruit will be working in the "industry" side of the profession to provide a permanent and temporary recruitment service in areas such as sales, technical product, academia, and laboratory work. The company's activities will not be confined to the UK alone, but, due the nature of this work, it will also operate in Europe.

The new company is headed up by James Roadnight, who has over 14 years' experience in working in specialist recruitment within professional and high integrity industries.

James said: "There comes a time in some vets or vet nurses' careers when they can want a change from working in practice and would like to move their skills to industry or academia. And we can help with this transition. Similarly, companies and institutions have a need to recruit personnel and will benefit from working with an agency that specialises only in this sector and should therefore have the strongest candidates available."

For more information, see www.rigahr.co.uk

Vets Now has this month launched a new fast track programme called 'Cutting Edge', which the company says is aimed at young, dynamic vets.

The 'Cutting Edge' initiative is apparently the first training programme of its kind in the UK and will see 40 graduates who graduated between 2006 and 2009 recruited into a 10 week fast track training programme, before they take up permanent positions in Vets Now clinics. Each recruit will get a salary package which will put them on £40k within 24 months.

Interviews and selection will be held mid-late August at a number of selection centres across the UK, with the first intake of 20 recruits commencing their fast track training programme on 4 October and taking up their positions in a Vets Now clinic in December.

A second intake of recruits to the programme will be selected during November, with these recruits taking up their positions on the fast track training late in January.

The programme is being spearheaded by Vets Now Clinical Director and experienced clinician and teacher in Emergency and Critical Care, Amanda Boag, MA VETMB DipACVIM DACVECC FHEA MRCVS who said: "This is a unique and hugely exciting opportunity for recently qualified vets to enter the field of Emergency and Critical Care. We're looking for dynamic and energetic young vets with a real passion for continuing their clinical development who feel they have what it takes to succeed in this exciting, and growing sector of veterinary medicine."

She added: "The recruits who we select will embark upon an intensive period of training over the 10 week period which will give them the necessary skills and knowledge to launch their career in ECC. They will also receive ongoing support during their first two years as a veterinary surgeon in a Vets Now clinic with a very generous CPD allowance. The initial 10 week period will be a combination of lectures and interactive seminars, practical training in our clinical skills laboratory and mentored work in our clinics. Developing clinical expertise and problem solving skills will clearly be the most significant component of the training but there will also be support and training in other vital skills including communication."

Until now, Vets Now would only employ veterinary surgeons with at least two years post-qualified small animal experience or who have completed their PDP. This new programme has been launched to attract and support young talent in making the move to this growing sector of veterinary medicine. 

Recent graduates who are interested in developing a career in ECC are invited to apply in the first instance by contacting the Vets Now recruitment team on 01383 841181 or by emailing cuttingedge@vets-now.com. 

The new initiative also has a Facebook page - www.facebook.com/vetsnowcutting edge and you can follow news and updates on the 'Cutting Edge' Twitter page at www.twitter.com/vncuttingedge.

So, after months of speculation, the Panorama documentary: It shouldn't happen at a vets' finally aired last night. Early reaction from most of the profession seems to be one of mild relief that by focussing so heavily on Medivet, the documentary has left everyone else more or less unscathed.

There's also a great deal of sympathy for those hard-working and professional vets and nurses who work at Medivet. They're the biggest losers in all of this, tarred by the indefensible behaviour of a very small number of colleagues, and by the very nature of most of the filming in the documentary (give me a fish-eye lapel camera, and I could make even Mother Theresa look like a crack dealer).

But can everyone else really sit back, think 'not my problem', 'sensationalist rubbish', or 'it'll blow over in a week' and move on?

If you consider only the more headline-grabbing elements of the documentary, any of those would be a reasonable position to take. But look beyond 'Vet Makes Fraudulent Insurance Claim', and it seems the producers might accidentally have hit upon some big challenges facing the profession. Might now be a good moment to reflect on and debate some of these issues? 

The first story covered by the documentary was that of an owner who'd found their cat 'weeing blood', taken it to Medivet and been quoted £815.05 for a bank of tests. They'd left in disgust, and visited another practice. This one gave a diagnosis without tests, the bill for which came to 75 quid, including £28 worth of food.

Veterinary costs were a recurring theme throughout the documentary. At the start, Jeremy Vine pointed out the £20,000 lifetime cost of owning a dog, and the £15,000 cost of owning a cat. He said vet bills have trebled in a decade. Mid-way through the programme, the voice-over read: "Veterinary medicine is increasingly high tech, and increasingly expensive. The new generation of vets is taught that working up to an accurate diagnosis may involve extensive tests. More veterinary work means more costs. And later in the documentary, Alex Lee, the reporter, was said to have found evidence of two clients that had spent over £100,000 on their pets over a ten year period.

At the end of it all, the real issue is not about the disparity between one vet's bill and another's, but whether the profession is becoming over-qualified or over-equipped for the job, and consequently at risk of pricing itself out of the market. 

Commenting on state-of-the-art care, Professor Innes from the University of Liverpool said in the programme: "We would never push clients into procedures that are unnecessary, but if people want to access the best healthcare for their pet, that's up to them."

Surely every pet owner wants to access the best healthcare for their pet? Of course, Professor Innes is right, there is a market for complex procedures and diagnostic tests. But there's a very fine line between 'pushing' a client into a procedure, and recommending a procedure (to someone who feels emotionally duty-bound to do the best for their cherished pet).

For me, it was ironically one of the Medivet staff who seemed to hit the nail on the head when she said: "The 'Medivet Way' is to work it up to find out why straight away, so... And people can't afford it now really, you know."

Is the word 'Medivet' in her quote interchangeable with a growing list of practices? Does something need to give? Is it time to call a halt to the development of increasingly complex procedures and diagnostic tests developed to save the life of what is, after all, just a cat or a dog?

Or is it a question of veterinary surgeons ceasing to recommend any particular treatment above a certain cost, and instead simply laying out the options available to the client: "Mrs Jones, you've got three options here. Option one is my best guess, and I might be wrong. Option two is my best guess plus these tests, which will help confirm whether I am right and will cost x. Option three is referral to the world's leading expert, who is based in Dallas, but that'll give time for the MRI on board the specially chartered 747". I'm being flippant, but my point is a serious one: as more expensive treatment and diagnostic options become available, so it becomes ever riskier recommending them, rather than simply informing the owner of their choices.

The next story was an important one too. It was the one where a student nurse and the unqualified reporter were tasked with catheterising a dog unsupervised. They struggled. As did the dog. Thanks to the hidden camera, and the reporter interjecting: 'What a nightmare', it made for dramatic TV. But as many have commented in the VetSurgeon forums, a difficult to catheterise dog is not exactly out of the ordinary. And who thinks this was the first time the procedure has been done by lay staff?

More interesting was the polar opposite interpretations of the law on this issue expressed by Medivet on the one hand, and Professor Sandy Trees for the RCVS on the other. In response to the question of whether a trainee should be placing a catheter, Jeremy Vine read from a statement in which Medivet insisted that everything it allows its trainees to do is legal, and that there was no definitive list of procedures that could be carried out by trainees. Two minutes later, and we had Professor Trees appearing to contradict Medivet's statement.

Then we see the reporter and a student nurse taking a blood sample from a cat, before the arrival of a vet. Medivet says: "This procedure was completely legal, normal and was carried out at the direction of a vet. This means that the vet does not have to be present at the time. [The tasks] were not illegal. The trainee veterinary nurses were properly trained and experienced. RCVS inspectors have never raised this as an issue, and it is common practice." But when Jeremy Vine then asked Professor Trees: "Would it be OK for a student veterinary nurse to take a blood sample before a vet arrived into the practice", the answer is no. When pressed: "So supervision means that the vet has to be in the building", Professor Trees hesitates before delivering his more ambiguous reply: 'I would say so, yes'.

How on earth did that happen? How did one of the biggest veterinary groups come to be at loggerheads with the regulator on TV? Remember that Medivet would have had some time to prepare its response, and presumably had it checked by a team of lawyers first. Professor Trees may or may not have had the luxury of as much warning. Still, if el Presidente himself cannot give more than a personal opinion in answer to such an important question, something is amiss. After all, people's careers are at stake here.

The issue here is whether regulation needs to become more prescriptive. For example, is it fair that the responsibility for defining precisely what is 'minor surgery (not involving entry into a body cavity)', and therefore able to be performed by a qualified veterinary nurse, currently rests with the individual veterinary surgeon. And if it comes to it, the only way the veterinary surgeon is going to know whether he or she made the right call is if and when it comes to be tested in court.

Talk about closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Surely it is time now, particularly in the (like it or not) increasingly corporate and less personally accountable world we live in, for the profession and everyone in it to have clearer leadership in terms of what is and what is not acceptable.

I won't dwell on any of the other stories covered by the documentary, because I don't think any of them are individually revealing of very much.

A student nurse struck a dog. 'Walloped' according to the reporter; 'smacked' according to an  onlooker. There's a difference. Either way, a difficult one to defend.

Then a member of staff (and I couldn't work out whether it was the vet or the nursing assistant) started playing with an anaesthetised kitten as if it were a puppet. That was damning for the lack of humanity it showed.

Next we saw a new grad trying to intubate a cat. For some reason, it didn't go as smoothly as it should. Some speculation in the VetSurgeon forums as to whether she applied the local anaesthetic correctly or not, but the cat was fine. Mistakes happen.

Next we saw a dog that had a condition which made it susceptible to cuts. A 'new girl' says she thinks she must have accidentally cut its pad as she closed the kennel door. Not the end of the world, except we then see the staff plotting to tell the owner that it happened before the dog arrived at the practice, and that they would need £13 worth of Fuciderm. Again, it isn't what you would call the crime of the century. But it was nevertheless a damning piece of film for the lack of honesty shown by the staff.

Then we had the case of the dodgy insurance claims, where the practice allegedly split what should have been one claim into three 'by accident', so that they could effectively increase the total amount the owner would be able to claim. Difficult to get really het up about this one. I mean, I know it's wrong. But it wasn't exactly in the same league as Lord Brocket taking the oxyacetylene torch to his car collection. And as far as I could see, the unwitting beneficiaries of this one were the dog and its  owner.  No, the real problem was that in the same breath as Medivet proclaimed its innocence, its employee was there in technicolor explaining exactly how and why the deed was done.

Guy Carter, one of the Medivet partners was next on the rack. The Panorama reporter alleged that he instructed staff to bill a client for a monitor that wasn't used. The company says it was. So it's their word against hers. Unfortunately, the company's word wasn't looking that good by this stage in the proceedings.

As I said earlier, these things don't individually tell anyone much. But collectively, I wonder whether they don't highlight another important issue, which is the apparent 'disconnect' (hate using the word like that, just can't think of a better alternative at this time of night) between what the public wants (i.e. a close, trusting relationship with an accountable James Herriot-type-figure, personified in the film by Bob Stevenson), and what the corporates can realistically deliver.

I was chatting about this with a locum vet this afternoon. His experience is that in small practices where the owner is present, there is always a better atmosphere. Staff take more pride in their work, and deliver a higher standard of care than in the corporates.

Isn't that really what the documentary showed? Yes, they were especially excruciating examples of how people behave when they don't have a real sense of ownership in a business. But isn't a lower, less personal standard of care an inevitable consequence of corporatisation?

Incidentally, my apologies for labelling Medivet a corporate rather than a partnership, but like it or not, that's the public perception of a chain.

Finally, the star of the show made his grand entrance. Kfir Segev, charged with recommending £2200 worth of MRI scan for a dog that was obviously dying. Now that is despicable. He's found guilty of unprofessional conduct, and struck off. I suppose 'vet commits fraud, is found out and punished' is not the stuff of which great documentaries are made, so Panorama tried to make something of the fact that he continued to work for 28 days whilst deciding whether to exercise his right to appeal. And? Perhaps sensing they still had a bit of a non-story on their hands, they tried to make an issue out of the fact that he'd continued to work as a practice manager after being struck off. It was all a bit lame, really.

Still, not as lame as the finale, which was the 'revelation' that Medivet collected blood from rescue dogs, in return for donations of food and supplies. Panorama claimed the blood was sold at a profit. Medivet claimed it is subsidised. Does anyone actually care either way?

Since the documentary was broadcast last night, Medivet has issued a further statement in which it does the honourable thing, and takes responsibility for everything it needed to. Medivet will recover from this. If the professionalism of the response is anything to go by, it will emerge stronger.

Still, the big questions remain. How to address the spiralling costs that accompany the latest advances. Can the profession afford, any longer, to leave so much to the discretion of the individual, or is it time to demand a more prescriptive regulatory environment? And finally, how can the corporates deliver the kind of service that the public seems to want? Doubtless there will be some who'd like them to fail in this regard. But as we've just seen, it does nobody any favours if they are allowed to do so in a way that threatens to bring the whole profession into disrepute.