Two analyses of the pet insurance market have been published this week, which together suggest that veterinary practices may be starting to price themselves out of the market.
Both reports are titled Pet Insurance 2014. In the first, published by Key Note Ltd, authors highlight a 35.4% increase in gross claims incurred on cat and dog insurance policies between 2009 and 2013, which is more than 5 times the increase in the volume of claims over the same period. It is the degree to which the value of claims has outstripped the volume which the report describes as 'undeniably the greatest factor affecting the UK market for pet insurance.
At the same time, there has been a relatively modest growth in the percentage of adults that own a cat or dog (around 1.5 percentage points). Consequently, premiums increased by 38.9% between 2009 and 2013 as insurers responded to the growing cost of claims.
Meanwhile, the other Pet Insurance 2014 report, this time from YouGov, has shown that the main factors limiting the uptake of pet insurance are poor value for money and the high cost of premiums. In 2012, 31% of owners without insurance said it was not good value for money, and that was the main reason for not taking out cover. By 2014, that figure had risen to 39% of the uninsured and 26% said they just cannot afford premiums.
According to the YouGov report, the words that uninsured pet owners most associate with pet insurance are 'expensive' (68%) and 'waste of money' (30%). Even 57% of those with insurance deem it expensive.
YouGov also highlighted that the number of uninsured pet owners who say they can afford to pay for veterinary treatment out of their own pockets (without setting money aside each month) has increased 4 percentage points from 15% in 2012 to 19% in 2014. YouGov hypothesises that this may be down to the improving economic situation in the UK, but it could equally be explained as just the way hard-pushed people self-justify their decision to discontinue insurance.
James McCoy, Research Director, YouGov Reports said: "Although social grade is important to being able to afford to take out pet insurance, our research suggests that those at different ends of the financial spectrum share the opinion that cover is not necessarily always a sound financial option.
"More affluent pet owners find insurance poor value because they can afford to pay for treatment up front; for less affluent pet owners, while pet insurance is perceived as offering good value for money, the cost of premiums is prohibitive, leading some to save money instead."
RCVS CEO Nick Stace has published a refreshingly candid acknowledgement of recent concerns voiced by the profession on his blog, www.nickstaceblogs.org.
In his post, he gives a firm commitment to listen to the profession, asking just that in return, MsRCVS get more involved in College matters, such as voting in the elections and getting involved in consultations (starting with this one).
Definitely worth reading the full post: http://nickstaceblogs.org/2014/05/06/receiving-you-loud-and-clear/
The RCVS has announced that it has accepted the resignation of council member Bob Partridge.
Bob, who had been an elected member of the RCVS Council since July 2006, tendered his resignation for personal reasons.
Peter Robinson will take up the vacated Council position, as he came next in the ballot in the 2013 election.
Surrey vet Matthew Morgan has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after being convicted and imprisoned for four counts of pet insurance fraud.
Mr Morgan was convicted, upon his own confession, of dishonestly making false representations to make gain for himself/another or to cause loss to other/ expose other to risk on 22 July 2013 at the Central Criminal Court and, on 23 August 2013, was sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
The Disciplinary Committee heard that Mr Morgan, who was not present at the hearing but represented by Mr Laurence Imrie, Solicitor Advocate, had, between 13 November 2009 and 21 December 2012, taken out 18 insurance policies for veterinary cover with four separate insurance providers - Direct Line, Pet Plan, Pet Protect and Sainsbury's - in relation to a number of pets. Of these pets, only one, namely his pet cat, actually existed - the rest were fictitious.
During this period, the respondent made 50 claims on the insurance policies, seeking payment to reimburse him for the cost of veterinary treatment for the fictitious animals and also making false claims for treatment for his own pet cat, including for invented injuries 'sustained' during a non-existent car accident. As a result of the claims, the insurance companies made 54 payments to Mr Morgan to which he was not entitled, totalling £198,295.
At the time he began committing the offences Mr Morgan was working as a veterinary surgeon at a practice in Kent and, in order to support his fraudulent claims, used the practice's official stationery and stamps to fabricate invoices, clinical records and insurance claims. He continued to make fraudulent claims after leaving the practice, having taken the practice's headed paper and stamp with him.
Mr Morgan's actions came to light in December 2012 after submitting a claim to Direct Line for an operation on the spine of his own cat. The insurance company became suspicious and contacted the Kent practice which confirmed he had not treated the cat. An investigation by the insurers and, subsequently, the police began.
On 31 December 2012 Mr Morgan voluntarily attended a police station where he admitted fraudulently claiming £5,534.52 from Pet Plan and £7,610.03 from Direct Line, citing financial pressure caused by divorce, but failed to admit to the rest of his fraudulent activities. He was arrested on 25 January 2013 and, upon searching his home, police found the stamp and headed paper along with documents relating to the insurance claims.
The Disciplinary Committee, in considering the conduct of Mr Morgan, took into account a number of serious aggravating factors. This included the very high degree of financial gain from the fraudulent activities, the fact that there were 50 separate premeditated acts of dishonesty over a three-year period, the betrayal of trust of his former employer and the insurance companies, the potential reputational risk for his former employer, the abuse of his position as a veterinary surgeon and the fact that completion of insurance claims is an act of veterinary certification.
The Committee also considered, in mitigation, a letter from Mr Morgan to the Committee, three testimonials and representation from his legal representative. These cited the fact that Mr Morgan, when he committed the fraudulent activities, was heavily in debt, had serious domestic difficulties and was suffering from depression, although no medical evidence was submitted to the Committee.
However, it was the Committee's decision that the sanction of removing Mr Morgan from the Register had to be taken, in order to protect animal welfare and maintain public confidence in the profession.
Chairing and speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee its Vice-Chairman, Ms Judith Webb, said: "The Committee is of the view that the Respondent's conduct in this case was deplorable ... Such conduct can only undermine public confidence in the profession. The Respondent abused his position as a veterinary surgeon to perpetrate a deliberate long-term fraud on insurers for personal gain.
"The Committee is conscious that its role is not to punish but to protect animal welfare and maintain public confidence in the profession. Due to the serious nature of the matters before it...the Committee has no doubt that the only suitable sanction is to direct the Registrar to remove the Respondent's name from the Register."
The Committee's full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
As of today, veterinary surgeons in the UK can call themselves 'Doctor', following a decision made by the RCVS Council.
The decision to allow the use of the courtesy title followed a consultation which received 11,202 responses, of which 81% were in favour of the change, 13% against, and 6% did not mind either way.
The College says the idea is to align the UK with international practice, provide greater clarity for the profession and offer reassurance to clients and the animal-owning public that all veterinary surgeons registered with the RCVS, regardless of where they qualified, have veterinary degrees of an appropriate standard. Most international veterinary surgeons use the title and, in Australia and New Zealand, this is frequently tied to registration and professional standing, rather than necessarily academic attainment.
RCVS President Professor Stuart Reid said: "I am very pleased that the response from the consultation gave Council such clear direction and has allowed us to bring UK vets in line with the majority of veterinarians worldwide. It was my privilege to pose the question, which has been well and truly answered by the profession and the public.
"Whether one regards the decision as correcting a historical anomaly or simply providing greater clarity at home and abroad, there is no doubt that the issue has generated huge interest. Yet regardless of whether individual vets choose to use the title, it will not change the profession's ongoing commitment to the very highest of standards."
Nearly 50% of respondents to the consultation were veterinary surgeons, 22% veterinary students, 21% animal-owning members of the public, and the rest were veterinary nurses, veterinary nurse students, practice managers and non-animal-owning members of the public.
RCVS CEO, Nick Stace said: "I am delighted that such a strong message came from both the public and the profession on this issue. We have a responsibility to maintain confidence in the veterinary profession and this move will help underline to the public in particular that veterinary surgeons work to very high standards, regardless of where they qualified."
Use of the title is optional, and guidance has been produced to support the change. It stresses that veterinary surgeons using the title should be careful not to mislead the public, and that it is important that the use of 'Doctor' or 'Dr' by a veterinary surgeon does not suggest or imply that they hold a medical qualification or a PhD. If the title is used, the veterinary surgeon should use it in conjunction with their name and either the descriptor 'veterinary surgeon' or the postnominal letters 'MRCVS'.
The guidance is available as part of supporting guidance chapter 23 to the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons, and can be read online at www.rcvs.org.uk/advertising (see paragraphs 23.6-23.8).
Veterinary surgeons may start using the title straight away; details about how their RCVS Register entry can be updated will be issued over the coming months.
Veterinary students Harry Pink and Meg Coram have won the third Sutton Bonington Science Cake competition for their entry: Rhinos Should Be Horny (pictured right, click to enlarge).
The competition was held on the 12th March in aid of Comic Relief, with entries in six different categories (Veterinary Medicine, Animal & Agriculture, From Farm to Fork, Infection, Cakes for Animals, Comic Relief).
The entries, which ranged from nesting chickens, ringworm in cats and sows with piglets to beautiful vegetables and gardens, were prepared by students and staff at the campus. They were evaluated by 9 judges including members from both schools of Bioscience and Veterinary Medicine.
The cake competition also made it onto national TV this year. Apparently, Comic Relief loved the photos from the last two bake off competitions and asked for one of the bakers to design a cake for the special Comic Relief episode 'The Great British Bake Off'. Last year's public vote winners Rachael Lowton and Jennie Stoddart accepted the challenge and produced 'Just Your Everage Cake' in homage to Dame Edna.
You can see photographs of all the 2015 entries here: http://www.sbcakeoff.co.uk/entries
You can support SB Cake Off for Comic Relief here: https://www.justgiving.com/sbcakeoff/
Vet Futures, the joint initiative by the RCVS and BVA to stimulate debate about the future of the profession, has opened a new discussion hospice care, and whether it it will become mainstream in veterinary medicine.
This month's Vet Futures guest blogger, Kath Dyson, a former veterinary surgeon who qualified from Glasgow in 1989, writes that veterinary palliative care, while a relatively recent phenomenon, has been growing in stature, particularly in the United States, with symposia and conferences on the subject as well as webinars and chapters in text books.
She notes the increasing number of UK vets offering hospice care, highlighting the differences between palliative services offered in human and veterinary medicine as well as debates within the profession over the advantages and disadvantages of palliative care versus euthanasia.
She said: "In animal hospice it is the pet's owner who takes on all the financial, practical and emotional costs involved, whereas human patients have a lot more support available. Euthanasia is always an option in veterinary medicine, and indeed euthanasia of an animal can legally be carried out by anyone, so long as it is done humanely."
On the euthanasia debate she adds: "Some regard euthanasia as more of a last resort, with hospice assisted natural death being seen as more preferable and only a minority of patients requiring euthanasia. Others feel that euthanasia is more often likely to be the preferable outcome of a period of hospice care in the animal patient, even though they do not rule out a natural death."
Overall she argues that additional expertise from veterinary surgeons in end of life care will help the profession be "even better able to provide truly lifelong care to all their animal patients".
To accompany Kath Dyson's article, this month's poll asks if hospice care will become a standard part of practice.
Last month's poll asked if vets are given adequate information, guidance and support on ethnic and cultural diversity in relation to a blog written by a British Asian vet about prejudice he encountered from a client. The vast majority (90%) of the 118 people who responded to the poll thought that the profession was lacking in support when it came to diversity. Diversity in the profession and how to increase it has been a key topic identified by the project and it will be one of the issues addressed in the final Vet Futures Report published later this year.
To take part in this month's poll and to read and comment on Kathy Dyson's blog visit www.vetfutures.org.uk/discuss
Merial has announced the launch of NexGard Spectra, a broad spectrum oral parasiticide for dogs.
NexGard Spectra contains afoxolaner, which kills fleas and ticks on dogs, and milbemycin oxime, which is effective against roundworms, hookworms and whipworms.
The new product is delivered in a beef flavoured chew to help compliance.
NexGard Spectrum is available in five different weight ranges to suit puppies and dogs of all sizes.
The BVA has expressed its concern that almost two-thirds of food companies have no information on their commitment to stunning animals before slaughter – with only 4% having a "universal commitment".
The findings were published in the Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare report (BBFAW, published 27 January) and also show that slaughter without pre-stunning is the only welfare measure showing a decline in the percentage of food companies that have a specific policy on the practice, down from 34% in 2014 to 32% in 2015.
BVA has run a long-standing and high profile campaign to end non-stun slaughter in the UK, with a public petition in 2015 gaining 120,000 signatures. BVA, together with all leading farm animal welfare organisations, believes that all animals should be stunned before slaughter to render them insensible to pain. Scientific evidence supports the use of pre-stunning to safeguard animal welfare. In 2015, two-thirds of BVA members listed the issue as one of their top priorities for government.
BVA President Sean Wensley said: "Vets and the public are united in their concern about animal welfare at slaughter. There are several positive findings on the growing commitment of food companies towards farm animal welfare in the BBFAW report, which we welcome, but the report highlights a disappointing lack of commitment towards animal welfare at the time of slaughter. The European Commission’s study of 13,500 meat consumers across Europe found that 72% wanted information about the stunning of animals at slaughter. Food companies need to sit up and take consumers’ concerns about humane slaughter seriously. People want to be assured that farmed animals receive both a good life and a humane death."
Dermot Costello, a Shropshire practitioner, has been suspended by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for 10 weeks after he admitted being dishonest with a client and falsifying records about the treatment of her dog.
Mr Costello faced four charges against him:
At the outset of the hearing, Mr Costelloe, a partner at a veterinary practice in Market Drayton, Shropshire, admitted all heads of charge against him.
Scruffy had been brought to Mr Costelloe for a consultation on 27 October 2014. He carried out a physical examination and arranged for radiographs and routine blood tests while also prescribing anti-inflammatory tablets for spondylosis. Scruffy was brought back to the practice on 30 October 2014 following the deterioration of her condition. Further assessment took place and an abdominal scan was arranged for the next day. She stayed at the practice overnight, but died at some point during the night of 30 to 31 October 2014.
A telephone call between Mrs Green and Mr Costelloe took place shortly after 8am on 31 October during which he told her that "they had struggled with Scruffy all night" and that, as they were speaking, Scruffy was on oxygen and struggling to breathe.
After Mrs Green said she wanted to come to the practice to be with her dog, Mr Costelloe told her to wait and that he would call her back in two minutes. He did so and told her Scruffy had died five minutes ago, when in fact she had died at some point between 11pm on 30 October and 8am on 31 October.
Mr Costelloe continued the deception at meetings with Mrs Green on 31 October and 19 November 2014 and she was given the falsified clinical records on 4 December 2014. Another meeting took place on 14 January 2015 where Mr Costelloe finally admitted his deception to her. This resulted in Mrs Green submitting a formal complaint to the RCVS on 23 February 2015. He admitted his deception to the College in writing on 4 August 2015.
The Committee decided that all four heads of charge amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect as his actions contravened several sections of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons in relation to being open and honest with clients; keeping clear, accurate and detailed clinical records; and not engaging in any actions or behaviour that would likely bring the profession into disrepute or undermine public confidence in the profession.
The Committee noted that, in his statement, Mr Costelloe gave a number of reasons for his conduct, including concern over Mrs Green’s reaction to the death of her dog and concern for the young vet who was on duty when Scruffy died. However, the Committee considered that the need to be open and honest with his clients should have been put above the needs of his practice.
In considering its sanction against Mr Costelloe, the Committee heard mitigating evidence from four character witnesses called on his behalf, as well as a number of written testimonials, and also had regard to his evident remorse, shame and insight into his behaviour.
However, it also considered a number of aggravating factors, including the fact that the misconduct had premeditated elements, was sustained over a period of weeks, and constituted a clear breach of client trust.
The Committee decided that the most appropriate sanction was to suspend Mr Costelloe from the Register for a period of 10 weeks. Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "It [the Committee] concluded that this was the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case. The Committee took the view that the likelihood of repetition of dishonest conduct was very low. It had found no ‘attitude of dishonesty’ in the respondent. There were no risks to the welfare or health of animals. The respondent was a good veterinary surgeon and he had shown considerable insight regarding his dishonesty, for example, by actively seeking out Ms Green to tell her the truth.
"The Committee does not condone what the respondent has done. It considers that the public interest requires that there has to be confidence that veterinary surgeons do not fabricate accounts or documents, no matter what their intentions."
She added: "The Committee has therefore determined that suspension for a period of 10 weeks is proportionate in all the circumstances to mark the nature and gravity of the case and is sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession and to uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour, and directs the Registrar accordingly."
The Committee’s full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
The RCVS has announced the names of the candidates standing in the Council elections this year and is, once again, inviting veterinary surgeons to put questions to them directly in this year’s 'Quiz the candidates'.
There are eight candidates (well, seven really, if you exclude the 'Donald Trump' candidate) contesting six places in the RCVS Council, including four existing Council members eligible for re-election and four new candidates. They are:
Ballot papers and candidates’ details are due to be posted to all veterinary surgeons eligible to vote during the week commencing 14 March, and all votes must be cast, either online or by post, by 5pm on Friday, 29 April 2016.
To submit a question to the candidates, email it (NB only one per person) to vetvote16@rcvs.org.uk, post it on the College’s Facebook page (www.facebook.com/thercvs) or on twitter using the hashtag #vetvote16, by midday on Monday, 29 February.
Each candidate will then be invited to choose two questions to answer from all those received, and produce a video recording of their answers. All recordings will be published on the RCVS website on Thursday 17 March.
RCVS Chief Executive Nick Stace said: "Last year, all election candidates produced videos for the first time and, with over 3,500 views in total, it seemed a popular way for voters to find out more about the individuals who were standing.
"Providing a way for all vets and vet nurses to put their own questions to the candidates is now an integral part of the elections, and one which we hope will continue to encourage people to get involved and have their say."
Agria Pet Insurance has announced the launch of a new campaign to highlight the threat to animals from everyday poisons and toxins.
As part of its campaign, the company is encouraging vets and nurses to help clients keep their pets safe by sharing knowledge about specific toxins - increasing awareness of substances which can cause harm.
To support vets in advising clients, Agria has produced a poster designed for in-practice display (pictured right, click to enlarge), covering some of the main threats to cats and dogs that owners may come across in their everyday lives. Dangers include: ingestion of antifreeze and paracetamol by cats, certain human foods and rock salt by dogs.
International Cat Care, currently running the campaign ‘Keeping Cats Safe’ in conjunction with Agria, feels that many poisonings could be prevented if only owners knew the risks.
Claire Bessant, from the charity, said “Accidental poisonings are heartbreaking because they are so often preventable - owners just weren’t aware of the dangers. Even worse, sometimes people are trying to help their animals - such as when owners give paracetamol, unaware that it can be lethal for cats.
"We’re delighted that Agria is helping reduce the risk of poisoning with this veterinary campaign and we encourage vets to do their bit and display a poster." To order a copy of Agria’s poster – ‘Responsible Pet Ownership Month – taking extra care of your pet!’– to display in your practice, email the Agria vet team at admin.vet@agriapet.co.uk, or call them on 03330 30 83 90.
Cats Protection is calling for an urgent shift in pet owners' thinking in order to control the UK's cat population, after being inundated with thousands of unwanted kittens again this summer.
The charity is urging owners to neuter their cats at four months of age - two months earlier than the traditional six months - because this is when cats reach sexual maturity.
The call follows a recent survey carried out by the charity which found that just 4% of people neutered their cat at or before the recommended four months.
Each year, Cats Protection takes in thousands of unwanted or abandoned kittens which are the result of unplanned breeding so the charity is keen to make cat owners aware of the need to neuter.
Jane Clements, Cats Protection's Neutering Manager said: "Getting the neutering message across is proving to be a very tough hurdle for cat welfare because our research shows the vast majority of people are still not neutering their cats early enough to avoid unwanted litters of kittens.
"Without neutering, the UK's cat population quickly gets out of control and each summer we are overwhelmed with kittens in need of homes so it is vital people ensure their cats are neutered at the correct age to prevent unwanted litters."
While the lack of early neutering was a problem across Britain, the survey found the ITV Yorkshire and ITV Central areas are the least likely to neuter at the recommended age, both with just 1% of cats neutered at or before four months.
Cats Protection is planning to open a new homing centre later this year in Gildersome, Leeds, Yorkshire, and it is hoped its presence there will raise awareness of the need for better cat welfare and early neutering. The centre will find homes for around 500 cats each year, increasing the charity's work in the region by up to 68 per cent. Information about the new centre can be found by visiting www.cats.org.uk/support-us/future-for-cats/gildersome-homing-centre.
The charity is also embarking on a large scale neutering campaign in North Birmingham, which it hopes will help to raise awareness of the issues in the area.
Cats Protection runs a national register of veterinary practices that carry out neutering at four months of age. To register your practice, please visit the website at www.cats.org.uk/early-neutering
The University of Liverpool has developed a new diagnostic tool to help practitioners with their treatment programmes for osteoarthritis in dogs.
VetSurgeon.org member Dr Ben Walton, from the University's School of Veterinary Science, said: "In first opinion and referral practices canine mobility is assessed in a subjective fashion, either by a vet or owner. Assessment can differ between vets, and if more than one limb is affected it becomes even more difficult.
"Pain and mobility associated with this condition depends on recent activity levels, medication and even weather conditions, which mean that a dog can have good and bad periods and any physical assessment will only provide a snapshot of the disease.
"The most reliable data on this disease is often gathered from informally asking owners for their observations of their pet's behaviour. The difficulty until now has been knowing how to reliably record this valuable information so that it can recalled the next time the patient visits."
The new tool, which takes the form of a questionnaire, attaches score rates to quantify the level of disease against key questions addressed to the dog's owner. Owners are asked to grade their dog's activity and exercise levels, stiffness and lameness, and any changes that occur in different weather conditions. The information is recorded digitally so that it can be referred to throughout a patient's treatment programme.
Ben said: "This record of behaviour history, together with clinical assessment, could provide a more detailed understanding of how the disease is progressing, and importantly how healthy and comfortable the dog is."
Research which validates the new tool has been published on PLOS ONE here.
The Legislative Reform Order (LRO) to reconstitute the RCVS disciplinary committees separately from its Council has come into force and has amended the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (VSA).
The LRO brings the RCVS in line with regulatory best practice and, says the College, improves the independence of its disciplinary processes, marking a major step towards the College becoming a 'First Rate Regulator'.
The amendment made by the LRO requires that the RCVS Preliminary Investigation and Disciplinary Committees are made up of veterinary surgeons and lay members who are not RCVS Council members, and who are appointed independently. This ensures that the same group of people is not responsible for setting the rules, investigating complaints and adjudication.
The LRO also brings lay people formally into the Preliminary Investigation Committee and will allow the RCVS to increase the pool of people available to investigate complaints and sit on disciplinary hearings.
The first external members will join the Disciplinary and Preliminary Investigation Committees from July 2013. After a two-year transition period, members of the RCVS Council will become ineligible for membership of these committees.
RCVS Registrar, Gordon Hockey, said: "The LRO has been the culmination of many years hard work by the RCVS and Defra, with the support of the British Veterinary Association. At first glance the change that the LRO makes to the Act may appear minor, but the reform fundamentally improves the way the veterinary profession is regulated, and will help to ensure public confidence in the RCVS disciplinary processes."
Barclaycard has launched Paywag, a new NFC payment system for dogs.
Installed in a specially designed dog collar, the new system allows dogs to make payments up to £5.00 in value in selected pet stores and veterinary practices.
Almost half of the vets that watched a webinar about ferret medicine have said they would change their treatment protocols for adrenal disease and reproduction management as a result of what they learned.
The Virbac-sponsored webinar was led by John Chitty BVetMed CertZooMed CBiol MSB MRCVS and viewed by more than 600 practices, making it the most popular CPD event hosted by The Webinar Vet this year.
John Chitty said: "I provided an overview of treatment protocols for all of the common diseases but focused on adrenal disease as it's highly prevalent in neutered ferrets but may be reduced by the routine use of deslorelin implants. These implants can also be used to avoid surgical neutering."
According to a post-webinar questionnaire, 33% of clinicians said that they saw ferrets more than five times a year. Chris Geddes MRCVS, Product Manager at Virbac said: "This confirms what we thought: ferrets are being presented more and more in practice and so education on this species is vital. An amazing 41% of respondents said that they would change their protocols for reproduction management and 40% their treatment of adrenal disease following the webinar, showing how useful it was to those attending."
Virbac recently announced that it has gained a marketing authorisation for the use of Suprelorin 9.4mg in male ferrets. Suprelorin, a slow-release implant containing the gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist deslorelin, offers temporary sterilisation without the need for surgery.
For those who were unable to see it at the time, the webinar can now be viewed by visiting www.virbac.co.uk. A CPD certificate is also available for download as are six other webinars previously sponsored by Virbac.
Elanco Companion Animal Health has launched Recuvyra 50mg/ml transdermal solution for dogs, the first transdermal fentanyl solution to be licensed for the control of postoperative pain associated with major orthopaedic and soft tissue surgery.
Recuvyra is a schedule two controlled drug which contains fentanyl, a pure μ-agonist synthetic opioid with a potency 100 times that of morphine1. Applied to the area between the shoulder blades by a needleless two-pronged adapter two to four hours prior to surgery, Elanco says Recuvyra provides at least four days of opioid analgesia, which is mainly due to the activation of the μ-opioid receptors inhibiting the perception of pain and the transmission of pain signals in the spinal cord and dorsal horn2.
Elanco says Recuvyra's unique formulation provides long-lasting analgesia by establishing a depot of fentanyl within the stratum corneum. The fentanyl in this depot undergoes passive diffusion down a concentration gradient, and is steadily released into the general circulation over a number of days.
Ed Whittle MA VetMB MRCVS, technical consultant at Elanco said: "Fentanyl is widely used in human health and its powerful analgesic properties are well known amongst veterinary surgeons1, 3, 4. Recuvyra is a ground-breaking veterinary product that will provide long-acting post-operative pain control in dogs while reducing the need for repeated, invasive administration of analgesics in the practice and improved client compliance and the potential for mutimodal analgesia once a dog returns home."
To ensure proper use of Recuvyra, Elanco has produced a mandatory online training programme for veterinary surgeons to complete before ordering the product. The brief online training module, which can be viewed at www.recuvyratraining.eu, features information on the presentation, correct preparation and administration of the product, and the safe handling of patients that have been treated with Recuvyra. Once veterinary surgeons are trained, it is their responsibility to train their staff on the in-practice use of Recuvyra and Elanco has produced a training presentation to help educate veterinary professionals about the product.
To support the launch of Recuvyra, Elanco has produced a dosing calculator, cage cards and client information sheet. For further information on Recuvyra, please contact your Elanco Companion Animal Health key account manager or email elancocah.uk@elanco.com.
References
VetUK, an online supplier of pet products and veterinary prescription only medications, has announced that it now processes over £750,000 worth of online transactions per month.
The point of the press release was to highlight that this has been achieved using paypoint.net to handle the tens of thousands of orders that VetUK says it receives each month, and process the payments.
However, it does also highlight the ever growing competition to veterinary practices from online. You might like to check VetUK's POM prices here.
Hertfordshire-based, multi-specialist veterinary referral centre Davies Veterinary Specialists' new pro bono scheme has saved the life of a young German shepherd dog twice in fortnight.
'Apollo' first impaled himself on some broken fence panels whilst playing. A splinter of wood, which was around 5cm long and 1.5cm wide, became lodged between his heart and lungs. However, because he initially had no symptoms and there was no obvious puncture wound, his owner Sam Russell from Leighton Buzzard wasn't aware that anything was wrong. It was a week later when the dog suddenly became very anxious, uncomfortable and was struggling to breathe, that Sam rushed him to her local vet practice, Heath and Reach in Bedfordshire.
Hannah Johnston's initial diagnosis was that the dog had some foreign material lodged internally that was causing an infection. Without an urgent CT scan and surgery his chances of survival were minimal, but his owner was uninsured and had no means of affording the treatment. Hannah had recently read about a pro bono scheme introduced by Davies Veterinary Specialists and believed that Apollo's case fitted the criteria.
She said: "It was heart wrenching to think that a young dog, with such a caring owner, was very likely to lose his life and I was determined to do anything I could to help. I couldn't help shedding a tear when DVS agreed to treat him, as I knew Apollo now had a chance. His owner had recently had an awful spate of bad luck and was so deserving of DVS's help."
Manuel Jiménez Peláez, European Veterinary Specialist in Surgery at DVS, who operated on Apollo, said: "A CT scan showed a large, fluid-filled cavity, a partially collapsed lung and a sharp, thin, elongated structure, lodged between Apollo's lungs and his heart. We drained the cavity and successfully removed the foreign body. We also had to remove most of the irreparably damaged left lung."
Apollo was in hospital for two weeks, five days of which were spent in intensive care in a critical condition. Sam was thrilled when she was eventually able to take him home, but two days later disaster struck again. Apollo was diagnosed with gastric dilation volvulus. He needed surgery within six hours to survive the condition and DVS once again stepped in to operate as an emergency, free of charge.
Apollo has made a full recovery is now back at home with the Russell family. Sam Russell said: "Apollo has always been so determined and full of life. Even when he was dangerously ill and in intensive care he wouldn't give up and tried to rouse himself to come home with me. For Davies Vet Specialists to save my dog once is nothing short of amazing but for them to save him twice makes me speechless with gratitude. To be shown such kindness after a dreadful run of bad luck would leave anyone stuck for words."
All first opinion practices are eligible to apply for the DVS pro bono scheme, which will allow an average of one patient per month to receive free treatment. Requests will be based on advocacy from the clinical head of the referring practice and on genuine need. To find out more visit http://www.vetspecialists.co.uk/ or call Dr Clive Elwood, Managing Director, on 01582 883950.
Davies Veterinary Specialists (DVS), the Hertfordshire-based private small animal referral practice, has launched a pro bono scheme to help deliver the practice's multi-specialist care to deserving patients and clients.
All first opinion practices are eligible to apply for the scheme, which will allow an average of one patient per month to receive free treatment.
Clive Elwood, managing director of DVS said: "The DVS board was unanimous in its desire to introduce a pro bono scheme to help the needy, specifically those patients that are likely to achieve a full recovery following specialist care, but are otherwise precluded from referral because of their owners' particular circumstances."
Pro bono requests are open to all practices. They will be based on advocacy from the clinical head of the referring practice and on genuine need.
To find out more visit http://www.vetspecialists.co.uk/ or call Dr Clive Elwood on 01582 883950.
The Disciplinary Committee has directed that Kfir Segev be restored to the RCVS Register, having removed him over two years ago for dishonesty and misleading clients.
Mr Segev, formerly practising in Stanmore, Middlesex, was removed from the Register following an 11-day hearing ending on 19 May 2009 at which he had been proven guilty of deliberately concealing from his clients that their dog was terminally ill, whilst at the same time recommending that she undergo expensive and unnecessary procedures.
This was Mr Segev’s first application for restoration to the Register. The Committee found that, during his period of removal, he had undergone “extensive personal and professional rehabilitation”, which included attendance at a clinical psychologist and voluntary work in the local community.
The Committee found that, during his period of removal, he had undergone "extensive personal and professional rehabilitation.
From 2009 to September 2011, Mr Segev logged 420 hours of certificated continuing professional development, with particular emphasis on ethics, client relationships and animal welfare.
The Committee noted he had also seen practice and taken the advice of mentors, including about 80 days at “a number of high quality practices with eminent members of the profession”.
These included Professor Dick White MRCVS, of Dick White Referrals, Professor David Noakes FRCVS, Emeritus Professor of the Royal Veterinary College and Mr David Grant MBE FRCVS, Hospital Director at the RSCPA Sir Harold Harmsworth Memorial Hospital, all of whom gave evidence at the hearing in support of Mr Segev.
Professor White said that, since late 2009 when he was approached by Mr Segev for help in remedial training, continuing education and mentoring, he had subsequently had frequent dealings and conversations with him.
Professor White said: “I formed the opinion that he invariably exercised professional clinical judgement that is, if anything, considerably deeper than many professional colleagues. I felt he demonstrated compassion for patients and empathy for owners in equal measure and believed him to have come to understand fully the seriousness of his behaviour."
Mr Segev’s efforts at rehabilitation were described as “exceptional” by Professor Noakes, who said he was “impressed by Mr Segev’s genuine acceptance of the fact that he had committed a serious offence and deserved to be punished.”
Mr Grant, who had been in contact with Mr Segev since November 2010, told the hearing that, in his opinion, it was most evident that Mr Segev accepted his wrongdoing and, along with Professor Noakes, indicated that he was willing to offer continued support and help.
The College opposed the restoration of Mr Segev on three grounds, namely: the gravity of the matters found proved at the original hearing; that the length of time off the Register was insufficient to mark these and ensure that the reputation of the profession was not undermined in the eyes of the public; and, Mr Segev’s conduct, relying on two matters arising from the footage in a BBC Panorama programme, which was filmed both before and after the 2009 hearing.
The College also questioned whether Mr Segev genuinely accepted the original findings.
The Committee agreed that the findings of the original hearing were serious; it was, however, impressed by Mr Segev’s complete and genuine written and public apologies for what he had done.
It disagreed that the length of time off the Register was too short.
It was mindful that the purpose of the sanction of erasure is not primarily of punishment and considered that no useful purpose would be served by delaying further Mr Segev’s restoration.
Whilst the Committee found Mr Segev was wrong to have continued to display ‘veterinary surgeon’ on the practice nameplate (as shown in the television footage), it was satisfied that he did not intend to hold himself out as a practising veterinary surgeon and no harm to the public or animal welfare resulted from his mistake.
The footage also showed Mr Segev was in breach of RCVS guidance on the administration of anaesthesia by permitting a student veterinary nurse to induce anaesthesia by using incremental doses of intravenous propofol, with an unqualified assistant offering advice on the depth of anaesthesia during its incremental induction. The Committee considered Mr Segev’s actions to be an error, now cured.
In conclusion, the Committee accepted Mr Segev “had made genuine and successful attempts to reform his previous attitude and failings”.
It noted that a large number of testimonials had been provided by colleagues, friends and clients, and that the impact of removal on Mr Segev had been severe.
It concluded that his previous mistakes provided “no reason, relevant to animal welfare, to suggest that his restoration would be unwise.”
Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Chairman Beverley Cottrell said: “Restoration to the Register of a veterinary surgeon who has been guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect of such seriousness is not something to be undertaken lightly … But, in all the circumstances of this case, [we have] decided that Mr Segev is a fit person to restore to the Register, and so direct the Registrar.”
After tense negotiations which stretched well into the night, Jenny Smith MRCVS has been confirmed this morning as the new face of VetSurgeon.org.
Jenny, who qualified earlier this year (congratulations), will appear in advertisements for the site in Veterinary Practice magazine, The London Vet Show Guide and Cattle Practice. She said: "I'm only too pleased to help promote VetSurgeon.org. It helped me understand what happens in the real world whilst I was at university, and I got my very first job as a veterinary surgeon through the contacts I made on the site."
Jenny is the third face of VetSurgeon, replacing Niall Taylor MRCVS, who has held the post since taking over from Gillian Mostyn MRCVS in December 2009. He said: "I'm ruined. Ruined, you hear. Without this contract, I'll probably have to go and open branches of Aldi on wet Saturday afternoons."
In fine tradition, Jenny is donating her £100 fee to the Northern Rose Boxer Rescue charity.
Pfizer Animal Health and Central Veterinary Services are collaborating in a new venture to create a unified National Benchmarking Database open to all veterinary practices.
In what it says is an unprecedented move, Pfizer will integrate 15 years' worth of data from its Performance Index practice benchmarking service (formerly known as the Fort Dodge Index) with that of the Central Veterinary Services' Management Analysis Indices (MAI). These two benchmarking services have been in co-existence for a number of years, each using different databases. Combining the data from the participating practices within each benchmarking service will create a database of almost 300 practices, representing in excess of 10% of all UK companion animal and mixed practices. This, says the company, will provide a more accurate and relevant benchmarking of UK companion animal practice performance.
The first combined reports from this new National Database will be available in May providing a comprehensive analysis for the first quarter of 2012. For Performance Index practices, this will be available via a new web portal.
Participating practices will continue to access their reports and services independently via their respective portals for PI and MAI, but will benefit from the larger database providing greater accuracy, granularity and relevance of exactly who a practice chooses to benchmark itself against. This, in turn, should provide all participating practices with an even better understanding of both their critical success factors and where there are clear opportunities for growth. Pfizer says that as ever, practice data confidentiality will be guaranteed for all subscribing practices.
Ned Flaxman, Director Business Innovation, at Pfizer Animal Health said: "We have recognised that what veterinary practices really need is to be far more specific about who they benchmark themselves against. There is little relevance to a rural mixed practice in the Lake District employing 3 full time vets (FTVE) benchmarking themselves against a large 5 FTVE companion animal practice in the centre of Manchester - you are comparing apples and pears! My vision for creating the National Database was really to increase the business benefits of practice benchmarking and enable practices to compare apples with apples. With the new system, the large urban practice in Manchester should be able to compare its performance against other urban practices in the North of England employing 5FTVE!
"To ensure practices have accurate and relevant data from which to make informed decisions to grow and thrive in these turbulent conditions, the creation of a single national benchmarking database is the only sensible solution. Although we are effectively levelling the playing field by enabling other veterinary suppliers to offer benchmarking, we believe it is the right thing to do for veterinary practices and the market as a whole. For Pfizer Animal Health, the needs of our veterinary clients are the driving force for our business decisions, veterinary support services and product development."
Martin Barrow, Managing Director of Central Veterinary Services said: "We fully agree that a single benchmarking database is the right solution for the market. The creation of this National Database, open to all practices irrespective of their supplier, will provide the participants with unique tools to give them powerful insights for their practices' future continued success.
"MAI and the Performance Index have competed with each other for years and provided a very useful added value service for their respective subscribers but when we were approached to integrate the two databases, we immediately saw the bigger picture and recognised the significant benefits this could bring to a wider audience of UK veterinary practices.
"The national database uses open standards for data collection and data is accepted from all practices irrespective of which practice management system they use. We believe it is the right thing to do for veterinary practices and brings significant benefits to the whole veterinary profession."
Practices are urged to subscribe to the PI or MAI services either independently or through one of their practice development partners. Although run from a common database each service will continue to be provided with its own unique features.
For further information on Performance Index practices should contact their Pfizer Account Manager, email Pfizer at Vetsupportplusuk@pfizer.com.
For further information on MAI, practices should contact Central Veterinary Services at mai@centralvet.com, or telephone 01359 245310
The book guides the reader through the evolutionary background of dogs and cats and explains how inherited diseases and deformities associated with certain breeds can cause breathing problems, heart disease, skin problems and back problems.
The book concludes with practical advice to help owners buy a healthy puppy or kitten and to avoid the risk of supporting puppy farms.
Emma said: "I’ve been campaigning on this issue for twenty years and, if anything the conformational issues and inherited disease problems in dogs and cats, are getting worse with some breeders striving for ever more extreme body shapes.
"Selecting a pet with inherited defects can cost thousands in vet bills and cause anguish for family members. It also creates a relinquishment problem for animal shelters as they have to take in abandoned pets with health problems.
"While awareness is certainly increasing, too often prospective pet owners are still unaware of the health implications of the pet they are buying and it is difficult for my veterinary colleagues to criticise the choice of a client’s puppy or kitten once it has been bought. All too often though they are left to pick up the pieces."
Emma added: "Education is the key. It is vital that prospective owners understand why different body shapes could be detrimental to health and how far removed from nature some of our breeds now are. If we can encourage them to stop choosing the quirky extremes in some breeds, demand for them will soon fall. My message is simple – we should all prioritise health and temperament way above what animals look like.
"I hope that responsible prospective pet owners will find Picking a Pedigree? an enlightening read and that it will inform their choice of a new family member. I also hope that it will be a useful resource for vets and nurses to be able to recommend to reinforce their pre-purchase advice."