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.

Novartis Animal Health has been found in breach of the National Office of Animal Health Code on promotion.

The complaint related to a promotion at the National Sheep Association's 'Scotsheep 2012' on 6 June 2012, where Novartis had used the strapline 'Zolvix - the World's most effective wormer'.

The NOAH Committee unanimously took the view that the phrase constituted an all-embracing claim and a superlative which could not be substantiated. 

Accordingly, the Committee found the promotion in breach of Clause 5.2.

The full details of the NOAH Committee's rulings is published on the NOAH website at www.noah.co.uk/code. The full report of this particular case will be available shortl.

An article in the August issue of the Society of Biology's magazine, The Biologist, has called for a complete prohibition of the trade in exotic pets.

The article was co-authored by Elaine Toland, Director of the Animal Protection Agency, Clifford Warwick, an independent biologist at Leeds University Medical School, and Phillip Arena, lecturer in biology at Murdocy University in Perth. It highlights PFMA figures showing that the population of reptiles in UK homes was 700,000 in 2009, 850,000 in 2010, and 800,000 in 2011. Meanwhile, the article estimates that 700,00 reptiles enter the UK pet trade system through importation and breeding each year, leading to the conclusion that the annual mortality rate for reptiles in the home is 75%.

In calling for the ban, the article also draws attention to the impact of the exotic pet trade on the ecosystem, problems caused by the release of non-native species into the environment, and the increased risk of zoonotic disease posed by the importation of exotic pets.

Elaine said: The fact that most reptiles die within a year is truly tragic, and is probably unresolvable because reptiles and captivity simply don't mix. The trade in wild-caught and captive-bred lizards, snakes, tortoises and turtles is wasteful, destructive and inhumane, and even the most conscientious and well-intentioned keepers cannot realistically provide for all these animals' biological needs. The public would never tolerate three out of four dogs dying annually in the home, and nor should we tolerate such premature mortality in reptiles. A ban on this high turnover trade in disposable animals is long overdue.

She added: "While trade bans on certain species have not solved all the problems associated with exotic pet trading, they are very effective and important and more are urgently required. We are not proposing a ban on the private keeping of exotic pets as this would be both very heavy-handed and create a whole new problem of what to do with all the animals. Rather, we want an end to the commercial trade supply so that existing problems wither gradually along with a dwindling captive population."

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against a veterinary surgeon said to have been dishonest in claims made against insurance following a dog's veterinary treatment.

At the end of the four-day hearing, the Committee found Sheena Brimelow, formerly employed by Kinver Veterinary Practice in Kinver, Stourbridge, not guilty of charges relating to seven insurance claims submitted between 1 January 2008 and 1 October 2009. These related to her parent's dog, a Cairn terrier, which she had treated at her then employer's practice. Ms Brimelow admitted that she had submitted invoices with her claims showing the retail prices for several items, when she had paid the practice only the cost prices. She said that she had deleted records from the practice computer showing the retail prices so that the ingoings and outgoings in the practice finances were accurate.

The Committee considered whether Ms Brimelow had either behaved dishonestly or, in the alternative, ought to have known not to have included the sums she did in the insurance claims forms. The Committee found that Ms Brimelow was an honest and reliable witness. She had explained openly what she had done, entirely consistently, from the first time the allegations had been put to her by the practice owner. It noted that an insurance company representative also considered her actions to be "a genuine misunderstanding," although subsequently a complaint was made by the insurance company to the College about Ms Brimelow's actions. The Committee found there were no clear guidelines in the practice as to how staff insurance claims should be handled. It also felt that, as a result of the insurer's communications failures, it was not difficult to believe that Ms Brimelow was unaware of how claims concerning the insured pets of veterinary practice staff members were expected to be handled.

From the evidence presented in the hearing, the Committee calculated that Ms Brimelow had benefited by only £90.50. The Committee noted that she had offered to repay any monies to her employer or the insurer, and that the insurer's loss adjusters had thought this was a matter for Ms Brimelow and her employer. The College had also referred the matter to the police, who said it was not in the public interest to proceed with the matter, a decision they based on the low value of the loss and Ms Brimelow's offer to pay back the money.

Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "The Committee notes the reasons given by the police for undertaking no criminal investigation in this case, and agrees with that analysis. The Committee must apply the same standard of proof as would have been applied in a criminal case. In all the circumstances, the Committee is far short of being satisfied so that it is sure that Ms Brimelow acted dishonestly in this case."

"The Committee considers that [Ms Brimelow] was naïve and misguided in handling the insurance claims in the way that she did," he continued. "However, the Committee considers there was a lack of proper guidance within the practice as to how staff insurance claims should be handled. In these circumstances the Committee is not sure that the College has proved that the Respondent ought to have known that she should not have included sums on the claims form, which did not represent the costs that she had incurred."

Both elements of the charge were accordingly dismissed.

The RCVS DC has directed that a Wirral-based veterinary surgeon should be removed from the Register after finding that he had treated clients badly, kept inadequate clinical records, was dishonest in dealing with the RCVS, and that animals in his care were placed at risk.

At the end of the five-day hearing, the Committee found that Ian Beveridge, of the Daryl Veterinary Centre, Heswall, was guilty of charges relating to two separate cases: one concerning a crossbred bitch named Holly, who belonged to Mr and Mrs Flanagan and was treated in February 2011; and the other, a cat called Blu, belonging to Ms Simpson and treated in March 2010.

On the morning of 23 February 2011, Holly was admitted to the Daryl Veterinary Centre in a collapsed state with a swollen abdomen. The Committee found a proper assessment should have led Mr Beveridge to perform an abdominocentesis at the practice, the results of which, in view of the practice and its facilities, would inevitably have led to Holly immediately being referred elsewhere. However, the Committee heard that Mr Beveridge simply placed her on a heat pad for observation until about midday, something it considered no reasonably competent veterinary surgeon in general practice would have done. The Committee also found that, on more than one occasion, Mr Beveridge had refused to discuss referral with Mrs Flanagan, and this amounted to failing to treat her with courtesy and respect as required by the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct 2010, which applied at that time. Holly was ultimately referred elsewhere and survived. The Committee also found the records of Holly's admission to be completely inadequate.

Blu was presented on 22 March 2010 in a collapsed state by Mr Taylor, Ms Simpson's former partner with whom the cat lived. The Committee found that Mr Taylor was told that the cat would be kept on a heat pad, that no other treatment or diagnosis was discussed, and that the possibility of euthanasia was not raised. Having been unable to contact Mr Beveridge that evening, Ms Simpson went to the practice the following morning, intending that her cat be discharged and taken elsewhere. However, the Committee found, when Mr Beveridge eventually fetched Blu, who had died, he blocked Mrs Simpson's exit from the consulting room, saying words to the effect that had she been a better owner, none of this would have happened.

Mr Beveridge also sent to the College clinical records for Blu detailing a blood sample taken at 19.00 on 22 March, and subcutaneous fluids administered during that night. The Committee found this to contain deliberately false information in order to cast a better light on his management of Blu and that he was dishonest; the document was essentially a fabrication to enhance his own interests.

In reaching its decision, the Committee said that it made allowances for the fact that Mr Beveridge operated in first-opinion practice at a basic level. Notwithstanding this, however, it found him guilty of a very serious failure of care to both patients, which gave rise to serious risks to their safety and welfare.

Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "On each occasion [Mr Beveridge] treated the owners with a lack of courtesy and respect and made the difficult and distressing circumstances in which they found themselves much worse than they need have been. The Committee takes a very serious view of his attempt to prevent Ms Simpson leaving the consulting room with Blu, and of the unjust and upsetting way in which he sought to blame her for the animal's death. He showed her no consideration at all. Likewise his refusal to contemplate referral for Holly until compelled by Mrs Flanagan to do so and his persistent refusal to engage with her about this at all was, in the Committee's view, reprehensible."

The Committee directed Mr Beveridge's name should be removed from the Register.

An article by Consultant Biologist Clifford Warwick DipMedSci CBiol CSci EurProBiol FOCAE FSB in the current issue of the Journal of AWSELVA (the Animal Welfare Science, Ethics and Law Veterinary Association) is calling for greater scrutiny of the relationship between the veterinary profession and exotic pet trading.

The article, entitled 'Veterinary accountability and the exotic pet trade', was co-authored by biologist Catrina Steedman BSc(Hons) MSB and veterinary surgeon Emma Nicholas MA VetMB MRCVS

The authors accuse some vets of serving their own vested financial interests by directly aligning themselves with exotic pet trading. They say that these vets are effectively causing the wild-capture and intensive breeding, cramped storage, transport and sale of hundreds of thousands of fish, amphibians, reptiles and other animals.

The article points to scientific evidence showing that stress, disease and premature mortality commonly accompanies 'wild pets' at all stages of the trade and private keeping process.

The authors argue that promoting the trade in exotic animals runs counter to the veterinary profession's obligation to provide impartial guidance for the benefit of animal health and welfare, and that the issue of vets selling or promoting exotics in the home requires greater scrutiny for possible conflicts of interest and for contributing to harmful practices.

Lead author, Clifford Warwick DipMedSci CBiol CSci EurProBiol FOCAE FSB said: "By their nature, vets want to be and are obliged to be part of a solution to animal and human health and welfare matters. That a vet might have a hand in selling or promoting exotic pets is, in my view, tantamount to being part of a problem. And whether or not that represents a formal conflict of interest or questionable practice, I think the spotlight will continue focusing until there are no shaded areas."

He added: "In my view, the avoidance of unnecessary harm is a general responsibility we should all share, but I think veterinarians, like some other professionals, have a special responsibility in this regard. However, unnecessary harm is largely unavoidable with the exotic pet business. Whether wild-caught or captive-bred, animal suffering, species and environmental degradation, and public health concerns frequently go hand-in-hand with all stages of exotic pet trading and keeping practices."

Co-author Catrina Steedman BSc(Hons) MSB said: "Many vets are understandably critical of the exotic pet trade and its minefield of animal welfare, public health and environmental problems. It is unfortunate that a few vets, possibly with vested interests, feel it is appropriate to condone and even promote a trade that has such obvious negative consequences for animals and people."

Co-author, Emma Nicholas MA VetMB MRCVS said: "Vets have a responsibility to be approachable and impartial; animal welfare and also public health must be their priorities at all times. I believe it is pertinent that as a profession, we open the discussion as to how we best improve the welfare (health and quality of life) of existing exotic pets, and also educate and inform potential owners of "wild" or exotic animals of the associated welfare and public health considerations."

The article concludes that vets should '...occupy a detached position with no interest in the success or failure of the 'business' of exotic pet-keeping' and that 'any vet who recommends or endorses buying or keeping an exotic pet arguably imparts guidance that is not fully consistent with ensuring good animal welfare or human health'.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against Duncan Davidson MRCVS, a South London veterinary surgeon accused of clinical failings in relation to his treatment of a cat and of keeping poor and misleading clinical records.

The Committee heard the case against Dr Davidson, who was the sole practitioner and owner of Mitcham Veterinary Clinic until his retirement from clinical practice in November 2014, at a hearing which concluded on 22nd January.

The first charge against Dr Davidson alleged that, between 7 November 2013 and 13 December 2013, he had failed to provide adequate care to Ameira, an Egyptian Mau cat. The charge was in four parts: that he had inappropriately administered corticosteroids; had failed to administer adequate fluid therapy; discharged the cat to its owner suggesting a referral when he should have suggested or arranged a same-day referral; and that he failed to communicate the urgency of referral/ further investigation of the cat’s condition to her owner.

The second charge was that, between 7 November 2013 and 17 January 2014, he dishonestly made retrospective alterations to Ameira’s clinical records and failed to keep clear, accurate and detailed clinical records.

From the outset Dr Davidson, who attended the hearing, did not admit the charges against him and denied that his conduct, if found proven, constituted serious professional misconduct.

A summary of the circumstances of the case were that the cat had been admitted to Dr Davidson’s practice on 8 November 2013 with poor appetite and a piece of thread in its mouth. The cat was later admitted, on 21 November, with dehydration and was diagnosed with a linear foreign body (ie the thread) on 25 November 2013. Dr Davidson continued to treat Ameira with corticosteroids and rehydration fluids at the practice but a second opinion was sought by Ameira’s owner from a nearby veterinary practice. This practice referred the cat to the Royal Veterinary College for treatment. Surgery to remove the linear foreign body was undertaken on 13 December 2013, albeit with a poor prognosis, and Ameira subsequently suffered two cardiac arrests and died on 14 December 2013.

In terms of its findings on the first charge, the Committee heard from an expert witness, Mr Hurst, regarding the use of the corticosteroids which were administered to the cat by Dr Davidson on 22, 27 and 30 November 2013 and 5 and 12 December 2013. Although Mr Hurst said that a minority of veterinary surgeons may have provided corticosteroids when the cat was first presented to Dr Davidson on 8 November; when it was determined by Dr Davidson’s colleague Mr Holden that the cat’s condition was due to it having ingested thread, the use of corticosteroids was inappropriate from then on and would be considered contra-indicated. The Committee found this charge proven.

The Committee did not find the charge against Dr Davidson that he failed to provide adequate fluid therapy proven. When the cat was presented to the practice on 21 November 2013 suffering from dehydration, fluid rehydration was given but not administered intravenously. The Committee concluded that intravenous hydration was not necessary because the clinical records from both Dr Davidson and the Royal Veterinary College indicated that Ameira was only moderately dehydrated.

Regarding the referral of Ameira, the Committee could not be sure that the cat was sufficiently unwell on 23 November that it required immediate referral. Dr Davidson had sent Ameira home with her owner on that date on the basis that she was stable and that he would arrange a referral for her on 25 November. There was conflicting evidence from Dr Davidson and Ameira’s owner on the matter of whether, on 23 November, Ameira’s owner was advised that the cat’s condition was critical or that a referral was urgently required. Dr Davidson accepted that he did not seek to make an urgent referral. The charge was not proven.

Regarding the communication of the urgency for further investigation of Ameira’s condition, the Committee found that there was insufficient evidence to suggest that Dr Davidson did not adequately communicate with Ameira’s owner after the diagnosis of a linear foreign body was made on 25 November. According to Dr Davidson, he explained the risk of further damage to the oesophageal and gastrointestinal tract and offered further radiography. This was strongly contested by Ameira’s owner. However, ultimately the Committee were unable to be satisfied as to which version was correct to the necessary standard of proof required.

Regarding the retrospective amendment of clinical records, the Committee found that although there were some “troubling aspects” about the case, particularly evidence of a telephone call with the RCVS Professional Conduct Department in which Dr Davidson said that no retrospective alterations had been made, it was unable to be satisfied so as to be sure of his motivation for changing the records. His contention was that changes had been made as he was concerned he would be subject to civil litigation by Ameira’s owner. However, the Committee found the charge not proven, also taking into account Dr Davidson’s good character and unblemished professional record over 40 years.

However, the Committee did find that Dr Davidson’s clinical records were illegible. Dr Davidson recognised the poor quality of his handwriting, which the veterinary surgeons to whom Ameira was referred were unable to understand. The Committee found this charge proven.

Taking into account the charges it found proven, the Committee then considered whether they constituted serious professional conduct either individually or cumulatively. Judith Webb, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: "It does not consider that on the facts of this case the administration of corticosteroids amounted to disgraceful misconduct."

She added: "The Committee has already emphasised the importance of making legible handwritten records but it does not consider that the failure to do so in this case amounts to disgraceful misconduct.... The Committee has found that Dr Davidson was wrong to make retrospective entries in this case without making it clear when such alterations were made. The Committee does not consider that in this case the making of those alterations was capable of being disgraceful misconduct. The case is dismissed."

Ceva Animal Health has announced its biggest ever TV advertising campaign, designed to highlight the benefits of using Adaptil and Feliway, will begin on Christmas Day. 

The TV advertisement for Adaptil focuses on Meg and her Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, Dude, who is anxious when Meg is away from home.  With the strapline ‘Best behaviour starts here’ the advertisement will help educate pet owners on the action they should take to keep their dogs happy when they are left at home alone and Dude’s experience taking Adaptil.

Feliway’s TV advertisement features the strapline ‘Experience the difference in your home’ and focuses on the real life story of Clare and her rescue cat, Mewsli, who was often scared and anxious, so much so that she would hide under the bed and scratch the side of the chair.  

The TV advertising campaign, which is aimed at ABC1 women, runs from Christmas Day until 10 January 2016 and the advertisements will air throughout the family films over the festive period with Adaptil featured during ad breaks for Paul O’Grady’s For the Love of Dogs Christmas Special on Boxing Day.

The BVA and RCVS have announced the formation of the Vet Futures Action Group to take forward the ambitions and recommendations in the Vet Futures report ‘Taking charge of our future: A vision for the veterinary profession for 2030’ launched in November 2015.

The call for applications attracted more than 80 candidates with many more expressing an interest in helping to take the project forward. 

The Action Group will be tasked with working collectively to turn the report’s 34 recommendations into clear actions with buy-in from across the veterinary profession and a timetable for activity. 

The Action Group is made up of the BVA and RCVS Presidents and Junior Vice-Presidents, seven veterinary surgeons, a veterinary nurse, and a co-opted veterinary student: 

• Dr Clare Allen MA VetMB PhD MRCVS – Senior Teaching Assistant for curriculum and innovation in the Department of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Cambridge.
• Simon Doherty BVMS MRCVS CBiol FRSB – Owner and Director of Blackwater Consultancy and animal science expert for the Agri-Tech Organisation of UK Trade & Investment (UKTI).
• Daniel Hogan RVN – Operations Manager at Dick White Referrals.
• Dr Liz Mossop BVM&S PhD MRCVS – Assistant Professor of Veterinary Education and Sub-Dean for Teaching, Learning and Assessment at the School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of Nottingham.
• Gudrun Ravetz BVSc MRCVS  - BVA Junior Vice-President and Veterinary Consultant to Pet Health Plans from Denplan.
• Dr Kimberley Schiller BVetMed MRCVS – Manager in Healthcare Practice at Accenture, the global consultancy. 
• Dr Huw Stacey BVetMed DipAS(CABC) MRCVS – Director of Clinical Services at the Pets at Home Vet Group (PAHVG).
• Dr Mary Thomson BVMS MRCVS – small animal veterinary surgeon at New Street Vets in Devon, Vetlife Board member and RCVS Postgraduate Dean.
• Dr Chris Tufnell BSc (Hons) BVMS MRCVS  - RCVS Vice-President and Director of Coach House Vets, a small animal and equine practice in Berkshire.
• Dr Bradley Viner BVetMed MSc(VetGP) DProf MRCVS – RCVS President and Principal of Blythwood Vets, a group of small animal practices in North West London.
• Sean Wensley BVSc MSc Grad DMS MRCVS – BVA President and Senior Veterinary Surgeon for Communication and Education at the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals (PDSA).
• Dr James Yeates BVSc BSc DWEL DipECVS(AWBM) PhD MRCVS – RSPCA Chief Veterinary Officer and honorary lecturer at the University of Bristol and University of Surrey.

The members of the Group joining the BVA and RCVS officers were selected by the Vet Futures Project Board for their mix of experience and expertise across the Vet Futures ambitions and themes (Animal health and welfare; Veterinary professionals’ wider roles in society; The health and wellbeing of veterinary professionals; Diverse and rewarding veterinary careers; Sustainable businesses and user-focused services; and Leadership), as well as in veterinary education, veterinary regulation, and veterinary nursing.

BVA President Sean Wensley said: "The Group has a very important task ahead and we are confident that we have an excellent group of people with the right balance of skills, experience and expertise to take forward the Vet Futures recommendations and turn them into concrete actions. 

"We have had an incredibly positive response from the profession to the launch of the report and we hope organisations and individuals will now step up to work with the Action Group and take ownership of the activity for the good of the whole profession."

RCVS President Bradley Viner said: "We were overwhelmed by the response from the professions with ten applications for every place, and many more offers of support. The Project Board was particularly impressed by the high quality of the applications and the breadth of experience demonstrated by the candidates from all parts of the profession. 

"It was incredibly difficult to select the members of the Group from such a strong field but we are pleased that we have captured the variety within the profession as well as the enthusiasm to drive the project forward. We sincerely hope everyone who expressed an interest will remain engaged with the project as it progresses this year."

Cat Henstridge, a small animal vet from South Yorkshire, has started a Facebook page to add the veterinary profession's voice to the campaign against the practice of puppy farming.  

Cat said: "I write a blog on my website and recently touched on the subject of puppy farming. I was contacted by members of the 'PupAid' organisation and was shocked to learn that the veterinary community has no real public opinions on the subject. I found it really surprising that none of our professional bodies had spoken out, especially as we are supposed to be the bastions of animal welfare and see the consequences of poorly bred puppies all the time in our clinics."

"I am hoping the Facebook page will just be the start of a movement within the profession. Not only can we add our very powerful opinions to the discussion but this will be a way of driving the general public into our clinics to ask our advice, before they purchase a poor quality, sickly puppy and find themselves in trouble.

"Please join the page, add your stories about these dogs (we all have one!).  At the risk of sounding cheesy, by coming together, we can really make a difference!"

The British Veterinary Association has announced the results of the Voice of the Veterinary Profession survey, which found that 84% of veterinary surgeons give up time to work with animal charities and shelters. 

72% have a formal arrangement with charities to provide their time and veterinary expertise at a reduced rate, while more than 43% work completely unpaid for animal charities and shelters; treating thousands of abandoned, mistreated or injured animals each year.

The charitable work undertaken by practitioners varied from practice to practice, but included:

• Work with local animal shelters and national animal charities to provide a range of pro bono or reduced fee services, such as health checking, medicating and treating, neutering and vaccinating.
• Provision of veterinary care at animal shelters and rescue centres, ranging from treating injured wildlife to caring for abandoned and mistreated dogs and cats.
• Giving veterinary advice to homeless people and those in housing crisis, and care for their dogs as part of the Dogs Trust Hope Project. Vets also support other projects, such as the Freedom Project, which temporarily fosters animals belonging to families fleeing domestic violence.
• Teaming up with charities to provide neutering, especially for owners on limited incomes. Vets helped neuter 158,000 cats and kittens with Cats Protection in 2014 alone.
• Over 300 veterinary practices undertake work for the charity PDSA, providing treatment to animals of owners on means-tested benefits. The scheme ensures some of the most disadvantaged people in society can access veterinary treatment to keep their pets healthy.

On top of all that, veterinary surgeons also provide emergency treatment for stray and wild animals brought in by the public. Although they will sometimes receive a charitable donation towards the cost of treatment through schemes like the RSPCA Initial Emergency Treatment (IET) Scheme, that is by no means always the case.

RSPCA Chief Veterinary Officer James Yeates said: "Vets’ work in this area can go unrecognised but it is appreciated by the RSPCA that they are part of the team trying to help animals. The RSPCA is dedicated to helping animals most in need and relies on vets’ welfare work to help bring a stop to the suffering of all animals." 

BVA President Sean Wensley, said: "Behind these statistics are countless stories of veterinary teams – who already often work long, demanding hours – giving their time for free to support animal rescue staff and charities to care for abandoned, injured and neglected animals, as well as help owners to keep and care for much loved animals in times of hardship and crisis. The UK’s network of animal charities and rehoming centres do a fantastic job protecting wild and domestic animals each year. Animal welfare legislation is clear that animal keepers and owners are responsible for meeting their animals’ needs, and prospective animal owners must be aware of the cost and time commitment involved in animal ownership, but we appreciate people’s circumstances can change."

Photo: Javier Brosch/Shutterstock

Animalcare has announced the launch of Fungiconazol (ketoconazole), the UK's only veterinary licenced antifungal tablet for dogs, indicated for the treatment of ringworm.

Each Fungiconazol tablet contains 200 or 400mg of ketoconazole, to be administered at a dosage of 10mg per kg bodyweight once daily. Each tablet can be split into quarters or halves, allowing accurate treatment for dogs from 5kg (¼ x 200mg tablet daily) to 60kg (1½ x 400mg tablet daily) and beyond. The hypoallergenic chicken flavoured tablets mean that Fungiconazol is also suitable for dogs with food allergies or atopic dermatitis.

Animalcare Product Manager Tony Liepman said "This is a great addition to our antimicrobial range, and shows once again that it’s possible for us to be innovative without breaking anyone's budget. With the supply of the first and only licensed canine antifungal tablet on the market, we have ensured that all veterinary practices have access to Animalcare’s Technical Support department for further advice on treatment or its use in their patients."

Both 200mg and 400mg presentations of Fungiconazol, in 100 tablet blister packs, are now available from wholesalers.

For further information contact Animalcare on 01904 487687, or speak to your regional Animalcare representative (found at www.animalcare.co.uk/contact-us).