The eminent equine vet, Dr Sue Dyson FRCVS, has been struck off for a series of dishonest statements and actions, including fabricating a letter from a fictitious Home Office Inspector, in order to have her research project published in an international publication.

The Disciplinary Committee heard that in 2018, when Dr Dyson was employed as Head of Clinical Orthopaedics at the Animal Health Trust (AHT), she completed a research project: ‘Influence of rider: horse body weight ratios on equine welfare and performance – a pilot study’, for which she had previously been given the go-ahead by the AHT’s Clinical Research Ethics Committee. The results of the study were then submitted to the Journal of Veterinary Behaviour: Clinical Applications and Research for publication.

After peer-reviewing the project paper at the request of Journal Editor Karen Overall, Dr Matthew Parker, a Senior Lecturer in Behavioural Pharmacology at the University of Portsmouth, was concerned by the lack of a Home Office licence and asked for details of the licence or an explanation of why the project didn’t need one, and for the paper to be re-submitted.

In reply, Dr Dyson then emailed Ms Overall saying: “We have a former Home Office Inspector on our AHT Ethical Committee and two current licence holders (Named Veterinary Surgeons) who are fully conversant with the current legislation ... I also sought informal advice from a current Inspector. All were fully aware of the protocols to be employed and gave me assurance that in their opinion Home Office approval would not be required”.

Ms Overall then asked Dr Dyson to obtain a letter from the Home Office to support this position.

On 24 December 2018, Dr Dyson sent Ms Overall a letter purportedly from a Home Office Inspector called Dr Butler who, she explained, had advised her during the planning phase of the project. In the letter, the fictitious Dr Butler confirmed that their advice was sought for the project and that in their opinion, a Home Office Licence was not required.

Ms Overall then sent the letter to Dr Parker for further review, who decided to contact Dr Martin Whiting, Head of Operations at the Home Office Animals in Science Regulation Unit (ASRU) to ask if he knew of Dr Butler.

Dr Whiting confirmed that the Home Office had no record of employing a Dr Butler as an Inspector and that they were in the process of making further inquiries into the matter.

After Dr Whiting’s reply was forwarded to Dr Dyson, she replied to him saying that she thought the studies’ procedures did not meet the criteria for the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA), but that this was questioned by peer reviewers.

She said that her decision to send Dr Butler’s letter was one that she would ‘eternally regret’ and that she was ‘an inherently honest person’.

She explained that she was under a huge amount of pressure in her personal and professional life and that she was ‘fully aware that [she] acted completely inappropriately and she requested the incident be overlooked’.

In March 2019, Dr Dyson sent a letter to William Reynolds, Head of the Home Office ASRU, in which she expressed remorse for writing the letter. Mr Reynolds subsequently raised a concern with the RCVS about Dr Dyson’s alleged behaviour. 

Dr Jane Downes, who chaired the Disciplinary Committee, and spoke on its behalf, said: “The Committee heard from Dr Dyson that she had no recollection of several events detailed in the charge, including writing the letter from Dr Butler and sending the email to Ms Overall which contained Dr Butler’s letter. She accepted that the letter was dishonest and that it should not have been sent. However, she also claimed that, as she could not remember writing the letter, she did not act dishonestly.

The Committee heard testimonials from several witnesses who held Dr Dyson in high regard, including colleagues from the AHT, who attested to her integrity.

However, there were many dubious claims made by Dr Dyson throughout the hearing, including that the Home Office Inspector that she referenced as ‘my friendly inspector’ was someone who could have given informed consent to a project as Dr Dyson confirmed that she had met the individual briefly, around two and a half years ago at a drinks reception.

In reaching its decisions, the Committee considered Dr Dyson’s previously impeccable character, the written and verbal testimonies from witnesses. They also considered that during the hearing, Dr Dyson explained that at the time she fabricated the letter, she was under a lot of work and personal pressures, including managing a workload amidst colleagues’ resigning or going on maternity leave and it being the anniversary of her dog having to be humanely destroyed.

However, it did not accept Dr Dyson’s claims that she had amnesia at this time, and considered that she had not owned up to her wrongdoing until it was discovered. Although Dr Dyson maintained her actions were not pre-meditated, the Committee considered that, in the case of the forged letter, a certain amount of planning and careful thought was involved. The Committee believed that Dr Dyson knew what she was doing at the time, but acknowledged she may subsequently have blanked out what she did.

The Committee found all but one of the allegations proved and confirmed that it “was satisfied that the writing and sending of that letter was the culmination of a course of dishonest conduct.”

Committee Chair Dr Downes said: “In assessing [the evidence of] Dr Dyson the Committee took into account the difficulty faced by any Respondent appearing before their Regulator and also the various interruptions occasioned by issues which had to be dealt with during her evidence. Whilst [Dr Dyson is] undoubtedly highly qualified and highly respected, the Committee nevertheless considered her evidence lacked credibility and was not reliable.”

The Committee found that Dr Dyson’s conduct had breached parts of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons and amounted to serious professional misconduct.

Dr Downes continued: “The Committee determined that it was important that a clear message be sent that this sort of behaviour is wholly inappropriate and [was] not to be tolerated. It brings discredit upon Dr Dyson and discredit upon the profession.

"For whatever reason, Dr Dyson chose not to respond to Ms Overall’s email on 30th November 2018 in an honest and straightforward way. Instead, she lied about the makeup of the AHT Ethical Committee in order to cloak her response with authority.

"She also lied about having received advice from a current Inspector for the same reason. In the Committee’s view, she made a conscious decision to provide a dishonest response. She no doubt believed that would be the end of the matter.

"When that did not work, she lied further in the email to her co-author, Andrew Hemmings, claiming to have a letter from her friendly Inspector. When that too did not work, she impersonated a Home Office Inspector in creating the ‘Dr Butler letter’.

"She then added a false declaration to the manuscript, which she subsequently submitted to the Journal along with an email containing yet further lies. That was all done in a blatant and wilful attempt to deceive Ms Overall ... into believing the contents of the correspondence to be true, that confirmation a Home Office Licence was not required had been obtained and all was therefore well with the submitted manuscript.

"There was no rush, or urgency to have the paper published and the actions were not done in a moment of panic. No doubt she had not planned the entire course of events in advance, but instead reacted to each new obstacle that came her way, but her overall course of dishonest conduct spanned over three weeks.

“The Committee was well aware of the impact and ramifications for Dr Dyson of any decision to remove her from the Register but had to weigh her interests with those of the public.

"In doing so it took account of the context and circumstances of the case, all matters of personal mitigation, as detailed above, Dr Dyson’s undoubted distinguished international career and reputation and the need to act proportionally.

"However, for all the reasons given above, the Committee was of the view that the need to uphold proper standards of conduct within the veterinary profession, together with the public interest in maintaining confidence in the profession of veterinary surgeons, meant that a period of suspension would not be sufficient and that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in all the circumstances of this case was that of removal from the Register."

Zoetis has acquired Virtual Recall, a software business that helps veterinary practices improve their service offering and communication with pet owners.

Virtual Recall's products include vaccination, neutering, appointment and healthcheck reminders, customer feedback, telemedicine and post operation surveys, and healthcare advice communications. 

Jamie Brannan, Senior Vice President UK, Ireland and Nordics said: "This is an exciting opportunity for Zoetis to add a new solution for veterinarians with an innovative service that will support clinics in increasing their level of compliance, education and engagement at the pet owner level.

"As we expand our comprehensive offering across the continuum of care for veterinary clinics, Virtual Recall will enhance the level of pet owner services that can be offered to their pet owner customers in the UK, Australia and New Zealand.

“Our studies have shown that veterinary customers are keen to reduce administrative workload and find new ways to engage with pet owners. We believe that Virtual Recall will achieve that, helping to educate and improve pet owner compliance and adding financial benefits to the veterinary practice.”

Jamie Crittall, Co-founder, Virtual Recall said: “As a company we’ve always been restless – constantly looking at new ways and developing new technologies in which we can drive animal healthcare compliance. Zoetis’ thoroughly well-earned reputation for always putting their customers first – wanting them to thrive and be successful – combined with a commitment to enhance the lives of people and animals, is infectious. It is a very exciting new chapter for Virtual Recall and fellow co-founder Charlie Barton and I are thrilled to continue at the helm."

Lowestoft vet Frank Eric Ainsworth MRCVS has received a severe reprimand and warning as to future conduct from the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after being found guilty of serious professional misconduct.

The charge against Mr Ainsworth was that in July 2013, he failed to provide adequate care to Ash, a dog presented to him whilst he was working as a locum at Pinebank Veterinary Surgery in Kent.

Specifically, the charge was that having diagnosed Ash with heatstroke, Mr Ainsworth failed to admit the dog to the practice for urgent treatment, failed to transfer the dog to another practice, failed to suggest euthanasia, and failed to offer the owner, Mr McMahon, adequate treatment advice.

On presentation to Mr Ainsworth at Pinebank between 7am and 8am, Ash was collapsed and his symptoms included diarrhoea, vomiting, lethargy and a high temperature.

On being told that Ash had heatstroke and was unlikely to survive, Mr McMahon asked Mr Ainsworth whether anything could be done to save him, but was told the practice did not have the necessary treatment facilities. Mr McMahon was advised to take Ash home and use cold running water, ice packs and fans to reduce his temperature.

After Mr McMahon took Ash home and showered him in cold water, his wife telephoned Pinebank to complain. The practice receptionist, Ms Baldock, confirmed to her that there was nothing they could do.

Mrs McMahon asked if her husband could take Ash to Pinebank's out-of-hours service provider, but was told this was not an option.

Eventually, Mr McMahon took Ash to an alternative practice, Sandhole Vets, where the dog was treated by the practice owner, Mr Johnson. Mr McMahon was told that Ash was unlikely to survive and that, if there was no improvement, he should consider euthanasia. Around 45 minutes after the treatment was started, Ash suffered seizures and died shortly thereafter.

Mr Ainsworth told the Committee that he did not think Pinebank had adequate facilities to treat a dog of Ash's size for heatstroke and was unaware that it had a hosepipe and watering can. In addition, he did not believe it would be practical and effective to reduce Ash's temperature with wet towels and considered that the main priority of reducing the temperature would be best done at home.

Mr Ainsworth told the Committee that he intended to make enquiries about referring Ash to another practice once his temperature had been reduced at home. He was about to search the internet for alternative practices when he overheard his colleague's phone conversation with Mrs McMahon and assumed that Ash had been taken to another practice.

Mr Ainsworth accepted that he did not discuss euthanasia with Mr McMahon, which he said he would have done at a later stage if Ash's condition did not improve. He also accepted that he made no further enquiries of Ms Baldock and did not telephone Mr McMahon to check if Ash had gone to another practice.

Before reaching its decision the Committee considered, in detail, the testimony of a number of witnesses and experts for both the College and Mr Ainsworth. It rejected Mr Ainsworth's evidence that his treatment plan was to follow up his investigations into Ash's case or contact Mr McMahon by telephone. It concluded that, if such a plan had been in place, he would have informed Mr McMahon of his intentions.

The Committee also rejected Mr Ainsworth's evidence that he had overheard the conversation between Ms Baldock and Mrs McMahon. It said it was not credible that, if he had heard the call, that he would not have made further enquiries.

The Committee found the charges proven. For example, it concluded that Mr Ainsworth should have made further enquiries about the treatment facilities available at the practice for cooling Ash and, if he felt that they were inadequate, should have advised Mr McMahon to take the dog to another practice. It also felt it was inappropriate for Mr Ainsworth to have sent Ash home to the care of his owners while in a critical condition without first seeking the option of referral.

Furthermore, the Committee felt that Mr Ainsworth should have given Mr McMahon the full range of treatment options available, including oxygen and fluids as Ash was in a collapsed state, before he left the practice, as well as discussing euthanasia.

However, the Committee did accept, on the basis of Mr Ainsworth's clinical records, that he had given advice to Mr McMahon on how Ash could be cooled down at home, although it felt the advice could have been more detailed.

In deciding its sanction for Mr Ainsworth the Committee accepted that his actions were not motivated by indifference to animal welfare but that, on this occasion, there was a serious lapse of judgment.

The Committee also considered that this was a single incident on Mr Ainsworth's first day at the practice and that he had been confronted with an emergency situation before the practice had opened. It accepted that Mr Ainsworth had an unblemished career over the past 38 years and that he had produced character references from other veterinary surgeons attesting his integrity, skill and conscientiousness.

Judith Webb, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee has concluded that the sanction proportionate to Mr Ainsworth's conduct is one of severe reprimand and warning as to his future conduct."

She added: "The Committee considers that veterinary surgeons are required to be proactive in their duty of care and refer cases when they do not have the ability to deal with cases appropriately."

The Committee also recommended that Mr Ainsworth should undertake, in the next 12 months, continuing professional development with an emphasis on emergency and critical care and client communication.

The Committee's full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).

Carlos Egido Cortes, a Glamorgan-based practitioner, has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee following his conviction for possession of four indecent images of children and an extreme pornographic image involving an animal and a female.

Mr Cortes had pleaded guilty to the offences in January 2017 at Cardiff Crown Court. In February 2017, he was sentenced to six months imprisonment suspended for two years with a requirement to complete unpaid work and rehabilitation activity and a victim surcharge. Following Mr Cortes’ conviction the matters were referred to the RCVS and Mr Cortes was subsequently referred to the Disciplinary Committee.

Mr Cortes did not attend at the Disciplinary Committee hearing and was not represented. The Disciplinary Committee, being satisfied that Mr Cortes had been served with the Notice of Inquiry and having considered and taken into account a number of separate factors, decided that it would be in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing in his absence.

The Committee considered whether Mr Cortes’ convictions rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon. Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee has reached the conclusion that the respondent’s possession of this material which has led to his convictions was so reprehensible as to merit the description disgraceful. It considers that by possessing this material, the respondent has brought disgrace on the profession and will have undermined confidence in it. It therefore finds that the convictions have rendered the respondent unfit to practise veterinary surgery."

In considering the sanction the Committee decided that removing Mr Cortes from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons was the only available option. Ms Karve added: "The Committee has determined that the respondent’s behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with being a member of the veterinary profession. It therefore directs the Registrar to remove the respondent’s name… from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons."

Boehringer Ingelheim has launched NexGard Combo spot-on, billed as the first and only broad-spectrum parasiticide to treat cats for fleas, ticks, ear mites, roundworms and tapeworms.

NexGard Combo is a systemic isoxazoline-based endectocide designed specifically for cats which contains esafoxolaner, eprinomectin and praziquantel.

The new product provides one month’s protection against fleas and five week's protection against the most common tick on cats, Ixodes ricinus. It also treats the roundworms, Toxocara cati and Toxascaris leonina, hookworms, tapeworms and ear mites, against the last of which Nexgard Combo provides 97.2 to 99.9% efficacy following one treatment¹.

NexGard Combo can be used in kittens from eight weeks of age and 0.8 kg in weight, making it suitable for most kittens at first vaccination. It is available in two pack sizes: small, for kittens weighing 0.8 - 2.5kg and large, for adult cats weighing 2.5 - 7.5kg. For cats weighing 7.5kg or over, an appropriate combination of applicators should be used.

Jackie Sterratt, senior brand manager at Boehringer Ingelheim, said: “We’re excited to add to the successful NexGard range and to help vets treat more cats. We know only one in two cats is treated for fleas² and cats are only wormed on average three times per year³ despite all cats being at risk of fleas and most cats requiring monthly roundworming treatment^{2, 3}, so there is a big opportunity to increase treatment rates and compliance. As the only product on the market to treat fleas, ticks, ear mites, roundworms and tapeworms, NexGard Combo offers a simple solution for cats at risk of multiple parasites."

To support the launch Boehringer has produced a marketing package which includes a kitten support pack, client leaflets, dispensing envelope and parasite risk checker.

For further information, contact your local Boehringer Ingelheim territory manager or phone 01344 746957 (UK) or 01 291 3985 (Ireland).

References

1. Tielemans E, Prullage J, Tomoko O, et al.  Efficacy of a novel topical combination of esafoxolaner, eprinomectin and praziquantel against ear mite (Otodectes cynotis) infections in cats.  Parasite 2021:28.
2. Cooper A-R. et al. (2020). Fleas infesting cats and dogs in Great Britain; spatial distribution of infestation risk and its relation to treatment. Medical and Veterinary Entomology. Doi:10.1111/mve12462.
3. McNamara J. et al. (2018). Survey of European pet owners quantifying endoparasitic infection risk and implications for deworming recommendation. Parasite Vectors;11:571.

The RCVS has published a new waiting room poster which details what pet owners and veterinary professionals should expect from each other.

It’s very significant because it’s the first time the College has produced material for practices that highlights the responsibilities of pet owners, as well as those of veterinary surgeons and nurses. 

As such, it should be a really useful tool to support the advice given by veterinary surgeons and nurses in practice.

In other words, don’t just stick it on the wall in some hidden part of the waiting room. Display it prominently by the reception desk, and point to it when explaining why owners need to make their own arrangements to bring the animal into the practice in emergency, for example. Or why you can’t prescribe drugs when you haven’t seen the animal for 8 years. 

The idea for the poster was first mooted by Jonathan Wray MRCVS in the forum on VetSurgeon.org, after he’d seen a similar thing produced by the French regulator for veterinary practices in France. 

VetSurgeon.org decided to produce an English version with input from vets as to what they would like a UK version of the poster to say.

On reflection, however, it was always something which would carry so much more clout if it came from the regulator, so we turned the idea over to the RCVS.

To its great credit, the College ran with the idea and had the poster designed and put through its Standards Committee. The result has now been posted to all practices in the UK, with a pdf version available to download from www.rcvs.org.uk/poster. 

The RCVS is now inviting feedback about the poster at communications@rcvs.org.uk.

If you like the poster, I really do urge you drop the College a quick line at that email address and say so. Better still - and I will probably be put on the naughty step for saying this -  cc L.Lockett@rcvs.org.uk and i.holloway@rcvs.org.uk. It was they who took the idea forward and made it happen. I think they deserve a round of applause. 

A new poll carried out by YouGov on behalf of Dogs Trust has revealed that in 2022 vet bills were the biggest financial worry for pet owners when it came to looking after their dog. 

The second biggest financial worry was the cost of dog food (18%), followed by pet insurance (16%).

The news came as Dogs Trust announced that it has had 50,000 requests this year from owners asking the charity to take in their dog, a new record in the charity's history.

The outlook for 2023 doesn't look any more optimistic; the poll also found that 62% of people who don’t currently own a dog think the rising cost of living would prevent them from getting one in 2023, whilst 36% said it ‘definitely would’ and 25% said it ‘probably would’.

In the meantime 21% said they would give their dog fewer presents this year, whilst 13% said they won’t give their dogs a present at all this Christmas, despite giving presents in previous years.

Maybe that's a good thing. After all why were they wasting money in the first place: the dog doesn't know it's Christmas, or appreciate a present. 

Perhaps more significantly, fewer dog owners will be going away for a Christmas break this year: 9% said they’d be staying home because they can't afford a dog sitter.

Owen Sharp, Chief Executive of Dogs Trust, said: “Although it was inevitable that we would reach 50,000 calls from owners no longer able to care for their dogs, it’s still a shock and a stark signifier of the animal welfare crisis the UK now finds itself in.

“Through our December poll, dog owners have told us they’re going to struggle this Christmas, and many more are really worried about what 2023 is going to bring."

The RCVS Council has approved a pathway for veterinary and animal health paraprofessionals to become associates of, or accredited by the College and thereby fall within its regulatory remit.

At the June 2017 meeting of RCVS Council, members decided to look into two models by which paraprofessionals working in the veterinary, animal health or related fields, might be regulated by the College under powers granted by the RCVS’s Royal Charter in 2015.

The first was an accreditation model, which would involve the RCVS accrediting an organisation which would regulate the profession in question. The second was an associate/ full regulation model, in which individual paraprofessionals would receive a similar level of regulation to that already received by veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.

At its January 2019 meeting, RCVS Council agreed to proceed with both proposed models of paraprofessional regulation, with the suitability of each model being considered on a case-by-case basis, depending on the nature of the profession applying for recognition.

Paraprofessions whose work will need to be underpinned by Schedule 3 reform would need to apply for the associate model, as the RCVS would be required to be directly responsible for the register of any individuals undertaking such minor acts of veterinary surgery.

Two paraprofessional groups that have already expressed an interest in being regulated by the College, namely meat inspectors and animal behaviourists, will now be invited to apply for associate or accredited status.

Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: "This is a very significant decision by Council to open up a pathway to related paraprofessions to apply to become regulated by the College.

"It is difficult to give a time-frame at this stage as to when these particular professions will be brought on board, as we will have to go through a process of developing a number of new regulatory structures including registration, education and investigation and disciplinary, as well as the appropriate governing bodies for each of the professions.

"However, we are very pleased that the Association of Meat Inspectors (AMI) and the Animal Behaviour and Training Council (ABTC) have expressed an interested in being regulated by the College and we look forward to working with them to make this happen."

David Montgomery, President of the ABTC, said: "The ABTC enthusiastically welcomes the news that the RCVS is expanding its influence to include paraprofessionals. We look forward to exploring the opportunity to demonstrate the professional status of ABTC-registered Animal Trainers and Behaviourists by coming under the regulatory umbrella of the RCVS for the benefit of animal welfare."

Ian Robinson, a Trustee of the AMI, said: "The Association of Meat Inspectors welcome the news that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons intends to invite paraprofessionals to be regulated under the ambit of the RCVS. We believe it will offer enhanced security, opportunity and status, and we look forward to further dialogue to explore the various models in due course."

The College says it is also in touch with a number of other paraprofessional groups, including those representing animal musculoskeletal practitioners and equine dental technicians, about the future of paraprofessional regulation. However, before such professions could become associates, there would need to be reform of the Veterinary Surgeons Act in order to remedy some of the deficiencies of the current legislative regime and make sure that these groups have appropriate legal underpinning for their work. This, says the College, complements ongoing discussions on changes to the legislative framework to bolster the role of veterinary nurses. 

On particular issue that the College says the new proposals are designed to remedy is that of equine dental procedures being carried out by well-trained but nevertheless unregulated paraprofessionals. Neil Townsend, Chair of the British Equine Veterinary Association’s (BEVA) Allied Professional Committee, said: "Change to the current situation, where legislative enforcement is impossible, horse owners are confused, and horse welfare is compromised, is long overdue. BEVA is really pleased that the RCVS has listened and is supporting a proposal for regulation of all equine dental procedures. We hope that Government will act."

RCVS President Amanda Boag, said: "This is a real milestone in the history of the RCVS and represents quite possibly the biggest change to our regulatory role since the introduction of the Register of veterinary nurses in 2007, and should Schedule 3 reform be achieved it would be the most significant change since the role of veterinary nurses was first recognised in law in 1991. It is particularly befitting for our 175^th anniversary year, as it demonstrates we are an organisation that can evolve to meet the changes occurring in the wider veterinary and animal health sector and use our regulatory experience and expertise to ensure that animal health and welfare and public health is safeguarded in different, but related fields of endeavour."

The full approved paper regarding the review of the minor procedures regime and paraprofessional regulation can be found on the RCVS website at: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/policy/veterinary-legislation-review/ 

The Royal Veterinary College has published new evidence which shows that of the eight major disorders seen by veterinary surgeons in practice, dental disease, osteoarthritis and obesity have the highest overall welfare impact on affected dogs¹.

The research, which was carried out by analysing data from 455,557 dogs which presented at veterinary practices participating in the College’s VetCompass programme, investigated the frequency, severity and duration of anal sac disorder, conjunctivitis, dental disease, dermatitis, obesity, lipoma, osteoarthritis and otitis externa.

The main findings were:

• The most common conditions were dental disorder (9.6%), overweight/obese (5.7%) and anal sac disorder (4.5%)

• The conditions that lasted the longest were dental disorders (76% of year), osteoarthritis (82%), and overweight/obese (70%)

• Scoring out of 21, with higher scores for greater severity, the most severe conditions were osteoarthritis (13/21), otitis externa (11/21) and dermatitis (10/21).

The researchers say that by considering frequency, duration and severity together, the study showed that the conditions with the highest welfare impact overall are dental disease, osteoarthritis and obesity.

It is hoped these results can help vets to target conditions that have the greatest impact on dogs they treat. The evidence also shows owners the value of addressing these important conditions to improve their animal’s welfare. The study also provides evidence for other stakeholders on which conditions merit further research prioritisation.

Dave Brodbelt, Professor of Evidence-based Veterinary Medicine at the RVC and senior researcher on the study, said: "First opinion veterinary professionals see dogs presenting to them with a range of conditions everyday and understand what are the common diseases that they treat. Yet there is a need for clear evidence based welfare assessment of the major conditions of dogs. This work adds to our understanding by allowing the transparent comparison of commonly seen disorders in primary practice and highlights conditions with greatest welfare impact."

Dr Dan O’Neill, Senior lecturer in epidemiology at the RVC and co-author said: "During my 20 years as a first opinion vet, owners constantly asked me to advise them about the most important conditions that they should try to prevent in their dogs. At that time, I could not answer this as it was unknown to science. We now have this answer; and we can now advise owners to focus on dental health, monitoring for joint disease and to pay special attention to their dogs body condition score. Finally, we have the key to prioritising long-term health in dogs overall. This is a huge step forward to improving dog welfare; huge thanks to Dogs Trust for having the vision to support this work."

The study is freely available open access.

Reference

1. Jennifer F. Summers, Dan G. O’Neill, David Church, Lisa Collins, David Sargan and David C. Brodbelt. Health-related welfare prioritisation of canine disorders using electronic health records in primary care practice in the UK. BMC Veterinary Research 201915:163, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-019-1902-0

The RCVS Disclipinary Committee has severely reprimanded and warned as to her future conduct a Brighton-based veterinary surgeon who failed to maintain a proper boundary between her professional and personal relationships with a client.

The eight charges considered at the seven-day hearing involved Marie-Louise Schlemm's treatment of Ratszy, a 16-year old Jack Russell with chronic renal failure, and her relationship with the dog's owner, Ms B, who suffers from mental illness, during May 2010. At that time, Ms Schlemm was employed by Coastway Veterinary Group in Brighton to work for its out-of-hours veterinary services, Vetcall, to which Ratszy had been referred by the PDSA. 

The College alleged that Ms Schlemm deliberately misled Ms B as to the condition and prognosis of Ratszy, removed the dog without Ms B's consent, and behaved unprofessionally and inappropriately in her dealings with Ms B. Other allegations were that that she had suggested Ms B tell the PDSA a fabricated story in order that she might see the dog again; made an offer that Ms B and Ratszy could come and stay with her at her home; required Ms B to attend a supermarket car park at 12.30am to collect Ratszy; and took money from Ms B other than for the purposes of legitimate veterinary treatment.

The Committee found both Ms Schlemm and Ms B to be truthful and honest witnesses, and that Ms B's recollection was given to the best of her ability. However, where recollections differed, it relied on contemporaneously prepared clinical records to find that Ms Schlemm did not mislead Ms B to the effect that the dog was not dying. Although recognising that Ms Schlemm's actions were misguided the Committee found that the dog was not taken without consent.

Furthermore, the Committee said in making the offer that Ms B and Ratszy might come and stay with her, Ms Schlemm was wholly misguided and had blurred the distinction between personal and professional activities. By this time, she was aware Ms B suffered from mental illness and so should have allowed the mental health services to take control of the situation. Similarly, she should not have required Ms B to meet in a car park to collect Ratszy, behaviour the Committee described as bizarre and which had compromised Ratszy's welfare.  Although the Committee gave Ms Schlemm the benefit of the doubt as to whether money taken was, in fact, to pay for alternative therapy for Ms B, she did not deal with the matter openly and it was a clear breach of trust to both Ms B and Vetcall.

In mitigation, the Committee was satisfied that Ms Schlemm now had a genuine insight into her lack of judgement in her relationship with Ms B, had reflected on the decision of the Committee and fully accepted the "utter stupidity" of her actions. She had also attended courses on teamwork and managing client relationships, and had established good working relationships in a new practice.

Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "While the Committee has accepted that Ms Schlemm was motivated by good intentions towards Ms B and Ratszy, she breached the trust of both of Ms B and Vetcall in the way in which she behaved [and] acted in a misguided way in dealing with a vulnerable client, who was suffering from mental illness. In light of the serious nature of its findings, the Committee does not consider it appropriate to take no further action. The Committee has concluded that Ms Schlemm should be severely reprimanded for her conduct and given a warning as to her future conduct [and] reminds the profession of the importance of maintaining a proper boundary between the professional and personal relationships of client and veterinary surgeon."

The RVC has published a new study which has revealed several risk factors for canine lipomas, fatty masses which because of their large size and rapid growth often cause extreme and long-term anxiety to the owners of affected dogs.

The College says that until now, veterinary research has largely ignored lipomas because they are rarely referred for specialist treatment.

For the study, the RVC identified 2765 lipoma cases from a population of 384,284 dogs in its VetCompass Programme (which collects anonymised clinical data on dogs under primary veterinary care in the UK) in 2013. 

The study found that 1 in 50 dogs are affected by lipomas each year and that Springer Spaniels, Dobermann Pinschers, Weimaraners and Labrador Retrievers are the most susceptible to lipomas (5-8% prevalence).

The study also found:

• At least one lipoma was diagnosed in 1.94% of dogs during the single year of the study.

• Individual dogs with an adult bodyweight that was equal or higher than their breed/sex average had 1.96 times the odds of lipoma.

• As dogs age, their odds of getting lipoma increase. Dogs aged between 9-12 years were over 17 times more likely to be diagnosed with lipoma compared to dogs aged 3-6 years old.

• Neutered dogs had higher risk.

• Insured dogs had 1.78 times the odds of diagnosis. 

• Purebred dogs had 1.16 times the odds compared with crossbred dogs. 

Dr Lynda Rutherford, Clinician and Lecturer in Small Animal Surgery at the RVC, said: "This paper has supported the theory that lipomas are more common in older, overweight dogs.

"This information is useful as it can be discussed with owners and used as another reason to keep pet dog’s weight under control. It also provides a useful insight into how common lipomas are within the UK dog population."

Reference

• O'NEILL, D. G., CORAH, C. H., CHURCH, D. B., BRODBELT, D. C. & RUTHERFORD, L. 2018. Lipoma in dogs under primary veterinary care in the UK: prevalence and breed associations. Canine Genetics and Epidemiology, 5, 9. https://cgejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40575-018-0065-9 

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.