In previous years, candidates were only asked to provide manifestos, which often contained information that wasn't especially relevant to whether or not they should be elected to Council.
Now, they are asked to share their reasons for wanting to be elected, what they can bring to Council and what experience they have.
That should make it much easier for voters to pick the right candidates, which is no bad thing because there are 20 vets standing this year, a record since electronic records began in 1997 and 1 more than the previous best in 2014.
This year’s candidates are:
Louise Allum MRCVSSam Bescoby MRCVSAndrew Clemence MRCVSTshidi Gardiner MRCVSReginald Godwin MRCVSPaddy Gordon MRCVS Danielle Greenberg MRCVSGerard Henry MRCVSRichard Hillman MRCVSBenjamin Kennedy MRCVSDarren Partridge MRCVSMartin Peaty MRCVSAlison Price MRCVSPeter Robinson MRCVSJennifer Simmons MRCVSSadie Spencer MRCVS Mary Thomas MRCVSWilliam Wilkinson MRCVSLara Wilson MRCVS
and the inevitable Tom Lonsdale MRCVS.
The full biographies and election statements for each candidate are available to read at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote25.
The four candidates who get the most votes will take up their four-year terms on RCVS Council at the College’s Annual General Meeting on Friday 4 July 2025.
Simon Wiklund, Assistant Registrar and Returning Officer for both elections, said: “We are glad to see such a large number of veterinary professionals putting themselves forward as candidates for this year’s elections.
"It is worth noting that any future governance changes, including RCVS and VN Councils becoming all-appointed bodies, are contingent on new legislation and, until that happens, we will continue to hold our annual elections.
“You may have also noticed some differences with this year’s elections, particularly in terms of the candidate statements.
"This is thanks to a change to our election scheme, which provides greater flexibility about how we run our elections, and the information that we can ask the candidates to submit.
“This means that, rather than asking candidates for a broad manifesto statement, we’ve asked them to answer key questions that are relevant to the role of a Council member, including what skills and experiences they can bring to the table.”
Ahead of the elections, RCVS will be running its ‘Quiz the candidates’ initiative in which veterinary surgeons can submit questions to the candidates standing in their respective elections, in order to better understand them and their views.
However, due to the additional information now included in each of their statements, this year candidates will only answer one question of their choice each.
Before submitting questions to the candidates, please note the RCVS will only accept one question per person. Offensive, defamatory and inaccurate questions will be rejected by the Returning Officer and not be passed on to candidates.
Veterinary surgeons can submit a question to the RCVS Council candidates by emailing vetvote25@rcvs.org.uk.
The course offers practical tips and is also designed to help vets understand their obligations under the Code of Professional Conduct when discussing costs with clients.
RCVS CEO Lizzie Lockett said: “Discussions around the costs of veterinary treatment are not always easy and can sometimes give rise to misunderstandings or lack of clarity between clients and veterinary teams.
"We recognise the challenges these conversations present and the pressures veterinary professionals face.
“Meanwhile, the ongoing Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) investigation has highlighted that animal owners are not always satisfied with the level of information they receive in order to make an informed choice about treatment options.
This course supports the development of veterinary surgeons’ and veterinary nurses’ communication skills so that they can discuss treatment costs more transparently with their clients, helping to reduce potential misunderstandings and build trust.”
The course takes 45 minutes to complete and features an interactive scenario as well as expert video advice from experienced veterinary surgeons.
https://academy.rcvs.org.uk
However, when asked by VetSurgeon.org which audience - veterinary professionals, it's staff or the public - it was referring to, or what threats to safety and wellbeing were posed by X, the College refused point blank to answer.
So the real motivation remains unclear.
On the one hand, it could be a ridiculously over-sensitive move to protect its unknown audience from opinions that its staff find objectionable.
On the other hand, it could perfectly well be argued that short form social media reduces every discussion or debate to "I'm effing right and you're effing wrong", which is not appropriate for a scientific profession.
Equally, one could also argue that engaging in polarised debate online is not terribly good for one's wellbeing.
Or one could just argue that it's a terrible platform owned by a strangely meddlesome and interfering American.
However, given the College's strange refusal to expand on the reasons for its withdrawal, the first explanation seems more likely.
But who knows?
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/news/rcvs-statement-on-x-formerly-twitter/
Ms Evans was charged with causing or allowing a veterinary nurse colleague to order a prescription-only medicine from a practice supplier knowing that it was intended for human use, and made a false entry prescribing the medication on the clinical records of a cat belonging to her nurse colleague.
She was also charged with falsely recording details purporting to be the results of the blood tests on cat and then entering notes on the animal's clinical history which falsely indicated that there had been a meaningful result, and then indicating to the animal's owner that there had been a meaningful result, when in fact the tests had failed to produce any meaningful results.
The final charge was that her conduct in making the false entry for the prescription-only medication, and all elements of the second charge was dishonest and misleading.
Ms Evans admitted the first charge on the basis that she had allowed rather than caused the order to be made, all the other facts of this charge were admitted.
She admitted the second charge on the basis that she had failed to inform the cat’s owner of the test results, all the other facts of this charge were admitted.
She also admitted that elements of her conduct had been dishonest and misleading.
Having found the charges proven by Ms Evans’ admissions, the Committee considered whether her admitted actions and conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Ms Evans, through her legal counsel, accepted that the admitted charges passed the threshold for serious professional misconduct, though that question still needed to be determined independently by the Committee.
The Committee found that Dr Evans’ conduct had breached several key parts of the Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance, particularly around honesty and integrity.
It also found aggravating factors in this case, including the risk to human health by allowing the prescription-only medication to be ordered knowing it was for human use, the abuse of her professional position, the breach of client trust, the potential adverse impact on the welfare of the cat for whom she falsified the blood test records, and the potential adverse impact on the welfare of the cat for whom she had falsely recorded the prescription-only medicine.
The Committee found no mitigating factors relating to the facts.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said in relation to the first charge: “In the Committee’s view, this irresponsible approach to a prescription-only medicine risked human health, potentially compromised an animal’s welfare, since the clinical record suggested the cat had been given Fluconazole when it had not, constituted an abuse of the trust placed in her as a registered veterinary surgeon and was in breach of legal provisions designed to safeguard human health.
“Such behaviour falls far below the standard expected of a registered veterinary surgeon, undermines public confidence in the profession and would be considered deplorable by colleagues and the public alike.
"The Committee was thus satisfied that charge 1 on its own amounts to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
He added: “Acting dishonestly runs contrary to one of the most fundamental principles of the profession.
"The public need to know that they can rely on the honesty and integrity of the people to whom they entrust the care and welfare of their animals.
“Further, Dr Evans’ conduct in both incidents had the potential to undermine public confidence in the profession of veterinary surgery and bring the profession into disrepute.
"In all the circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that Dr Evans’ behaviour as reflected in charge 2 fell far short of the standard expected of a veterinary surgeon and amounted to disgraceful conduct.
“Accordingly, the Committee found proved the allegation that Dr Evans was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
Having found serious professional misconduct in relation to all charges, the Committee considered what the most appropriate and proportionate sanction would be for Ms Evans’ actions and conduct.
In doing so, it considered 137 positive references and testimonials from Dr Evans’ professional colleagues and clients, poor staff morale at the practice at the time as well as compelling, exceptional evidence relating to Dr Evans’s health at the time of the two incidents.
In mitigation, the Committee considered the fact that Dr Evans had no previous disciplinary history and had a hitherto unblemished career as a veterinary surgeon; her open and frank admissions; the circumstances of pressures at work exacerbated by Dr Evans’ desire to please everyone and not let anyone down; the fact that Dr Evans was feeling very isolated; the significant insight into her conduct and its impact; effective and targeted remediation to ensure there would be no likelihood of the conduct being repeated; genuine expressions or remorse and apology; support from her employers; and the very significant number of positive testimonials.
Summing up the Committee’s decision on sanction, Mr Morris said “In all the, somewhat exceptional, circumstances of this case, the Committee was satisfied that a reprimand and a warning not to behave in this way again, would provide adequate protection to animals, as it was satisfied Dr Evans was most unlikely to ever make such a flawed set of decisions again.
“The Committee was satisfied that Dr Evans does not represent a risk to animals going forward, indeed from the character evidence it is clear that she always puts the welfare of animals first.
"She has also shown, since this episode, that she can work under pressure and not resort to making bad decisions and thus the Committee considered the wider public interest would best be served in this case by a reprimand and a warning.
“Notwithstanding the serious nature of Dr Evans' conduct, the Committee was satisfied that a fully informed member of the public would not be shocked if Dr Evans were allowed to continue to practise.
“The decision of this Committee is, therefore, that Dr Evans be reprimanded and warned about her behaviour.
"Dr Evans should, however, be under no illusion of how serious it is to have a finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect made against her and she should not take lightly the decision of this Committee to reprimand and warn her.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Clare (pictured) who is currently the General Dental Council’s Interim Executive Director for Legal and Governance, will be joining the RCVS as its most senior legal officer at the end of March 2025.
A qualified solicitor, Clare started her practice as a Solicitor Advocate in criminal law, before undertaking roles in regulatory bodies in the healthcare and financial sector.
She joined the General Dental Council in March 2023 and has been in her current role there since March last year.
When she joins the College, Clare will have a dual role.
As Registrar she will be responsible for keeping, maintaining and publishing Registers of veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses, including oversight of the various mechanisms via which veterinary professionals can join the Register, what they need to do to stay on the Registers, how they may leave or be removed and registration appeals.
As Director of Legal Services, she'll provide leadership and guidance on legal matters within the organisation, including guiding RCVS Council through the development of oral and written legal advice, as well as sitting on committees and working groups in order to ensure the College’s activity is within its legal remit and represents best practice.
RCVS Chief Executive Officer Lizzie Lockett said: “I am sure the RCVS, the professions and the public will benefit from her very relevant experience from senior roles within the General Dental Council, Nursing and Midwifery Council, and Financial Conduct Authority, as well as her private sector legal experience.
“She joins the College at a time of change, with our continued push for new veterinary legislation, the ongoing Competition and Markets Authority investigation of the sector, and a new strategic plan for the College due to be approved this spring.
“The Registrar is the senior legal figure within the organisation, and I am looking forward to Clare contributing her legal expertise on these significant areas of work.
"She joins our very capable legal team, who I am sure will benefit from her leadership, as she will benefit from their sector expertise.”
Clare said: “I am delighted to join the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons to contribute to the valuable work of safeguarding the interests of the public and animals by supporting veterinary professionals to provide the highest standards of care.”
VetSurgeon.org extends a warm welcome to Clare and wishes her all the very best in her new position.
One small but nevertheless important point is that perhaps a better aim would be to support veterinary professionals in providing just a 'high' standard of care, rather than the 'highest' standards.
It's this constant striving for the 'highest' standards from both a regulatory and clinical perspective that is driving up the cost of veterinary care and making it unaffordable.
The CertAVN was launched in May 2019 as a modular, advanced professional qualification allowing veterinary nurses at all stages of their careers to develop their professional skills and knowledge.
The CertAVN framework sets out the professional values, skills and behaviours required of the higher education institutions responsible for providing the training and support for CertAVN students.
There are currently five accredited course providers in the UK:
The proposed standards for accreditation are set under three areas: curricula and assessment, educators and assessors, and learning culture.
Julie Dugmore, RCVS Director of Veterinary Nursing, said: “In order to make sure that the CertAVN remains up to date and fit for purpose, it is important that we consult on the accreditation standards at regular intervals.
"We welcome constructive and specific feedback from veterinary nurses at all stages of their careers – whether you have already undertaken the CertAVN or are perhaps considering doing so in the future – as well as the wider veterinary team, educators, and employers of current and potential CertAVN holders.
“Your insights will help us ensure that the standards continue to enable veterinary nurse educators to deliver the best training and support possible for CertAVN students."
The consultation runs until 5pm on Monday 3 March 2025.
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/our-consultations/review-of-the-certavn-framework
The model for the forecast was developed by the College with the Institute of Employment Studies using data from the RCVS Registers, the 2019 and 2024 Surveys of the Professions, Office for National Statistics data for projected economic growth and the PDSA’s Animal Wellbeing (PAW) Reports.
However, the model does not take account of the impact of the increasing costs of veterinary care on pet ownership trends, the full effect of which may not yet have been felt.
The main predictions of the model are:
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS Chief Executive Officer, said: “In 2021, there were clear concerns about there being a workforce crisis within the veterinary professions, and while that certainly seemed to be the case, and is likely to continue to be so in the short-term, according to this model the future picture for the professions looks much better in most areas of veterinary practice.
“However, government service/public health looks to be an area where there is still a significant shortfall in supply, which is concerning considering the importance of government vets in food safety, disease prevention and international trade and we are willing to continue to work with government to find ways to remedy this shortfall.
“We are aware that there may be some concerns about the implications of the model, particularly concerning the potential oversupply of veterinary nurses.
"While we stand by the robustness of the data, demography is not destiny, and with the planned enhancement of the veterinary nurse role, and the likelihood of suppressed demand due to prior shortages, it is likely that the number of veterinary nursing roles will expand to encompass the number of veterinary nurses available to work in it.
“Finally, we are aware that there are also some limitations to the model in its current form, for example, in terms of regional data.
"This is a work in progress, and we will continue to update and improve the model as and when new data allows.”
The workforce modelling report is available to download from www.rcvs.org.uk/publications
The changes are designed to make the process more accessible and the College says most were proposed as a result of candidate feedback. They are:
The changes will come into effect from 1 January 2025, in time for the 2025 Stat Exam cohort.
Dr Linda Prescott-Clements, RCVS Director of Education, said: “We have been listening to the concerns of various stakeholders, including those who have undertaken the Stat Exam previously and veterinary employers, and we used this feedback to work with the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) to come up with a set of practical, deliverable changes that improve the experience of Stat Exam for all candidates, and hopefully alleviate some of the stress involved around timescales, opportunity and finance.
“These changes will make the exam more accessible, as it will allow candidates to have two attempts at the written papers within the same diet, which need to be passed before being allowed to proceed to the practical exam and it will also help improve accessibility to the exam from the perspective of candidate finances.
www.rcvs.org.uk/statutory-membership-exam
The database, which has been designed to streamline the process of securing extra-mural study (EMS) placements for veterinary students and providers in the UK, has been backed by the Society of Practising Veterinary Surgeons and both organisations are now calling on veterinary practices and workplaces to sign up.
The College says it created the database to improve the accessibility and overall experience of booking EMS placements, mainly by aligning students' and providers' expectations before the placement.
EMS place providers will be able to list their placements and highlight details such as placement type, location, expected caseload/type, professional learning opportunities and practical aspects that students will look for such as transport links, accommodation and specific dates / availability.
Students will be able to search for placements based on their specific requirements and communicate directly with providers.
UK vet schools will also have access to be able to approve placements, streamlining the process.
RCVS Director of Education, Dr Linda Prescott-Clements, said: “By providing EMS placements, you’ll play a vital role in shaping the future of the veterinary profession.
"Hosting passionate, knowledgeable students not only enhances their educational experience and readiness for working life after graduation, but also brings fresh insights and energy to your practice.
"Additionally, you’ll build relationships with future veterinary talent, some of whom may return to work with your team after graduation.
"So, if you are not already a provider, we encourage you to consider the value of participating in EMS.”
If you are an existing placement provider and would like to join the RCVS National EMS Booking Database or are keen to learn more about the database and becoming an EMS placement provider, contact ems@rcvs.org.uk.
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/lifelong-learning/extra-mural-studies-ems
Meantime, the school was given a “conditional accreditation” for its degree, as it had met only 27 of the 77 RCVS accreditation standards.
The visitation was conducted by an accreditation panel comprising representatives from veterinary academia and clinical practice, as well as student and international representatives.
As part of the accreditation process, the panel considered documents and records, discussions and interviews with students and faculty members, a tour of the teaching facilities, and meetings with other stakeholders.
Based on the evidence, the panel agreed 55 recommendations for improvement which were then discussed, alongside the formal response from the Department, by the RCVS Primary Qualifications Subcommittee (PQSC), the body responsible for considering accreditation reports and making recommendations to Education Committee.
By contrast, the accreditation visit to the University of Bristol this year generated just one recommendation, likewise the visit to the University of Surrey last year.
Due to the unusually high number of recommendations and concerns about the delivery of the Cambridge degree, PQSC recommended that the programme receive conditional accreditation for 10 months, which was then agreed by Education Committee.
An RCVS spokesperson said: “Following careful review of the evidence, during the Committee’s detailed discussions, it was unanimously agreed that the number of standards not currently being met, which extended across all domains, meant that the Committee made the difficult decision to grant conditional accreditation.
“In reaching a decision and timeframe, given the problems identified, and the impact these will have on student learning and experience, Education Committee members firmly agreed on the need to help the vet school support both existing students on, and future applicants to, the Cambridge veterinary programme.”
“At the next visitation in September 2025, a panel will consider the evidence submitted and then a decision will be made on the future status of the degree.”
"In the meantime, we recognise that both students and staff might have concerns about this outcome, so we remain able and very willing to work closely with the Department in the coming weeks to ensure it has appropriate support plans in place.”
The full list of recommendations, suggestions and commendations for Cambridge can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/visitations.
The symposium aims to promote effective knowledge exchange and collaboration, the sharing of high-quality evidence-based research, and inclusivity within the veterinary mental health research community.
Dr Louise Allum, Mind Matters Chair, said: “Our fifth symposium in 2025 will centre around the theme of ‘Advancing veterinary mental health research: learning from the past, considering the present, and looking to the future’.
"It is of vital importance that we can collectively learn from recent endeavours to work out how we can collaborate towards creating a brighter future for the professions.
"It is only through events such as our symposia that we can start to understand where those vital research gaps lie, as well as what actions we need to take next in order to advance our understanding of veterinary mental health.
“Our symposium presents a fantastic opportunity for knowledge exchange in the veterinary mental health research sphere so that, together, we can continue to foster a compassionate environment and build a solid evidence-base for veterinary mental health research to grow and evolve.”
All abstract submissions must be completed and sent via email to symposium@rcvs.org.uk by 23.59 GMT on Friday 28 February 2025.
The symposium will take place on Friday 10 October 2025 in Birmingham, UK.
https://vetmindmatters.org/research/mmi-research-symposiums
Each charge related to fraudulent pet insurance claims that Mr Johnston had made for the treatment of animals when he was in practice in Banbridge, County Down, two of which were fictitious, and where he had arranged for the insurance claims to be diverted and paid into a personal bank account, rather than the practice’s bank account.
At an initial hearing, which concluded on April 2022, Mr Johnston had admitted all the charges against him as well as admitting that his conduct was dishonest and amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee was satisfied that his conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct, with Committee Chair Paul Morris saying: “The Committee has no hesitation in concluding that the respondent’s dishonest conduct will have severely undermined the confidence of the public in the veterinary profession and, further, that his conduct fell far short of the standards and conduct properly to be expected of a member of the veterinary profession.
"The Committee is satisfied that this conduct by the respondent brought the profession into disrepute.”
The proceedings were then adjourned to allow a psychiatric report and other mitigation to be prepared.
At its resumed hearing in November 2022 the Committee considered what sanction to impose in relation to Dr Johnston’s actions.
At this point, the Committee decided to postpone its decision on sanction for a period of two years on the condition that Dr Johnston enter into undertakings to the Committee including refraining from any form of gambling, subjecting himself to a close regime of support and supervision, and repaying some of the sums he had defrauded.
The hearing reconvened in October 2024 to decide on an appropriate sanction.
The Committee noted that Mr Johnston had complied with the undertakings and provided the Committee with the interim reports required of him.
He also continued with the therapeutic interventions and programmes specified, as well as implemented measures designed to minimise the risk of a relapse into gambling.
The Committee also noted that reports from the gambling support services, to which Mr Johnston had signed up, all spoke positively about his involvements and confirmed the progress he had achieved in managing his addiction.
The Committee also took into account a psychiatric report as well as evidence under oath from Mr Johnston’s wife who confirmed his compliance with the undertakings.
As a result, the Committee was satisfied that the prospects of a repeat of the conduct which led to the charges laid against Dr Johnston were now greatly reduced.
The Committee said it was less impressed with the evidence provided by Mr Johnston.
While he had largely complied with the letter of the undertakings he gave in 2022, it remained troubled by his apparent unwillingness or inability, on account of lack of effort, to fulfil the assurances previously given that he was in the process of changing his name to Johnston, from Fegan, on official documentation in order to be consistent with his legal name, when he had not done so.
The only formal name change in place was on the RCVS Register, and he had failed to alter his name on his driver’s licence, on his registration with the Veterinary Council of Ireland, his passport, bank accounts, and one of his email addresses.
As a result, the Committee did not find Dr Johnston to be an entirely satisfactory witness.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Having made the progress that he has over the period since the commission of the charges found proved in 2019, the Committee considers that the imposition of a sanction of suspension on top of the period of postponement would be excessive, in the particular circumstances of this case.
“For the same reasons, as stated above, it is considered that it would be excessive now to impose a sanction of removal from the register.
“That process of reasoning has driven the Committee to the conclusion that the sanction of a reprimand and warning as to future conduct is what the facts and circumstances of this case call for.
"That is because the respondent can be under no illusion about the outcome were he to appear again before this Committee.
"A failure to take advantage of the exceptional course adopted by this Committee on this occasion would be regarded as a serious aggravating factor were he to appear before the Committee at any time in the future.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
Miss Miles and her co-defendants mistakenly believed that the animals, which included a lamb, hens, piglets, goats, a calf, dogs and a pig, were in poor condition.
They went to steal the animals from their owners' property after dark, dressed in dark clothing; some in balaclavas.
Miss Miles was sentenced to a community order for a period of 18 months rehabilitation activity requirement and 100 hours unpaid work rehabilitation, to pay £250 compensation, an £85 victim surcharge, and £400 in costs.
The Committee found that the facts of the case were proved on admission by Miss Miles and on the basis that they accepted the copy of the Certificate of Conviction.
Deciding on Miss Miles’ fitness to practise, the Committee considered the evidence before it and the advice of the Legal Assessor.
It also considered the transcript of remarks of the sentencing judge, as well as the fact that the events which led to the convictions occurred while Miss Miles was a registered veterinary nurse with the RCVS.
In terms of mitigating factors, the Committee considered that there was no financial gain associated with Miss Miles’ actions.
In terms of aggravating factors, it noted the risk of injury to animals, that Miss Miles’ behaviour was pre-meditated, that individuals had been targeted in their own homes after dark, the stress and emotional harm to the owners, and that there had been repeated criminal offending.
The Committee also considered Miss Miles’ motivations in respect of animal welfare in coming to its decision.
However, it assessed the offences to be serious, taking into account their nature and circumstances.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was aware that breaches of the Code do not in themselves mean that the respondent is unfit to practise by reason of the conviction.
"However, the Committee took into account the nature and circumstances of the conviction and also considered the wider public interest.
"The Committee was satisfied that the respondent’s behaviour which led to the conviction created a real risk of harm to the animals in question, as was clear from the basis upon which the respondent was sentenced.
“Further, the behaviour which led to the conviction for the repeated offences in the circumstances in question brings the veterinary nursing profession into disrepute.
"To find otherwise would undermine public confidence in the profession and fail to uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.
“Accordingly, the Committee found that the conviction, set out in the charge, renders the respondent unfit to practise.”
When determining an appropriate sanction, the Committee considered the same aggravating factors it had evaluated when assessing fitness to practice. However, further mitigating factors, in addition to the fact that Miss Miles had no financial gain, included:
The Committee considered the testimonials and character references which attested to Miss Miles’ exemplary practice, integrity, professionalism, compassionate approach to animals, commitment to animal welfare, work in educating others in animal welfare, and commitment to campaigning for animal welfare.
However, it was noted that Miss Miles gave the impression to the Committee that while she accepted that it was wrong to commit the criminal offences, she also believed that her intention to protect the animals’ welfare was a justification.
Speaking on the sanction, Paul Morris said: “The Committee was of the view that the conviction was particularly serious, in that it involved offences of dishonesty on a repeated basis.
"The Committee also took into account that the respondent has invoked her beliefs to undermine an aspect of the sentencing judge’s remarks and has used those beliefs to justify her actions at the time before this Committee.
“However, the risk of re-offending is low and, as already stated, the Committee accepts the respondent’s assertion that she does not intend to break the law again, and the Committee is assured in this regard by the lack of repetition in the last six years.
"There was insight shown by the respondent into the effect of her conviction on public trust and confidence in the profession.
"The Committee weighed the demands of the public interest, as well as the previously stated mitigating and aggravating factors.
"In all the circumstances of this particular case, the Committee concluded that both a reprimand and a warning as to future conduct is sufficient and proportionate to meet the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards.”
The Committee went on to consider an order of suspension but decided that this would serve no useful purpose in light of the low risk of repetition of criminal offending, the nature of which was unconnected to her daily role as an RVN.
It could see no identifiable risk to animals now and in the future.
The Committee decided that to impose a suspension would be punitive and disproportionate.
The reprimand and warning sanction imposed on the respondent will remain on her RCVS record indefinitely and will be taken into consideration should there be any future misconduct.
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/
Council members voted in favour of becoming a fully-appointed governing Council and to explore retaining elected representation on a future council or committee focussed on 'upstream regulation' and development of the profession
Council also voted to move towards greater parity between professional and lay RCVS Council members, but delayed a decision on the precise balance until it has the opportunity to consider the matter in more detail.
Council voted to remove veterinary school appointees from Council, agreeing to discuss the future composition of the RCVS Education Committee at a later date.
Council then voted to further investigate a number of alternative governance arrangement suggestions, including independent oversight of the College, and to review term limits across all appointed positions.
RCVS President Linda Belton said: “Thank you to all who took part in the consultation and made suggestions on alternative and additional arrangements that might be made regarding our governance.
"Thank you also to Council members for a robust discussion of these proposals.
“We still have a number of important governance issues to discuss at a future date and the proposals that Council members have voted to approve today will not be brought into immediate effect, but will be included in our proposals to government for new veterinary legislation.
“As we seek reform of veterinary regulation via new primary legislation, it is important that our governance arrangements not only inspire public confidence and trust but also allow us, as a Royal College that regulates, to work with the professions on our upstream regulatory activities, not only to ensure that individuals are fit for practice, but also that we maintain a profession fit for purpose.
“The decision to explore retaining an elected element on a future veterinary council or committee, responsible for work dedicated to the development of the professions, gives a clear indication of the value of our ‘Royal College that regulates’ model.
"We have also made a further commitment to public assurance by agreeing to explore independent oversight of the RCVS.
“Any future appointments process developed by the RCVS will be committed to adhering to the Public Standards Authority’s principles on appointments; these are merit; fairness; transparency and openness; and inspiring confidence.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil-nov24
George Philippus Hauptfleisch faced three charges in relation to allegations of clinical failings surrounding three patients:
The first charge surrounded the allegations that in 2018, Mr Hauptfleisch failed to provide appropriate and adequate care to Steel, a Cane Corso Mastiff, in that he performed surgery outside of his competence, failed to offer a reasonable range of treatment options as alternatives, failed to make adequate enquiries about the possibility of a referral to a specialist, failed to obtain informed consent to the surgery, and failed to maintain adequate clinical records.
The second charge, in relation to a German Shepherd, alleged that in 2019, Mr Hauptfleisch failed to provide appropriate and adequate care when he undertook surgery which was outside of his competence and failed to undertake the surgery to an adequate standard, failed to note sufficient details to show that informed consent for the surgery had been obtained, and failed to maintain adequate clinical records.
The third charge, in relation to a Retriever, alleged that Mr Hauptfleisch failed to provide appropriate and adequate care with regards to surgery he performed when it was outside of his competence, failed to undertake the surgery to an adequate standard, failed to note sufficient details that showed informed consent had been obtained, and failed to maintain adequate clinical records.
Prior to the hearing, Mr Hauptfleisch made an application to the Committee to dispose of the matter by way of adjournment for an indefinite period, against his undertakings to request the Registrar to remove him from the Register, and never to seek restoration to the Register.
In deciding whether to grant the application, the Committee took into account a number of factors.
These included the fact that Mr Hauptfliesch had, in December 2021, returned to South Africa, after a career of over 32 years in the UK, and now resides there permanently, the fact that he has no intention of moving back to the UK, and that he had not practised as a veterinary surgeon since the day he left.
He had also removed himself from the equivalent register in South Africa and the Committee noted that the RCVS would inform the South African Veterinary Council of the outcome of these proceedings.
The Committee also noted that there were no previous disciplinary findings against him, that Mr Hauptfleisch now spends the majority of his time undertaking charitable activities, including running a mentoring programme for young people, and, that he expressed deep regret for anything which he did or did not do which failed to protect the welfare of animals or caused upset to his clients and fellow members of the profession.
Mr Hauptfleisch also drew attention to the fact that the charges did not allege dishonesty and that the reputation of the profession would be upheld as Mr Hauptfleisch would no longer practise as a veterinary surgeon and would not return to practise.
Therefore, it would not be proportionate, nor in the public interest, for there to be a lengthy contested hearing resulting in substantial costs for both the RCVS and for Mr Hauptfleisch.
Hilary Lloyd, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Taking into account the removal from the Register and the respondent’s undertaking never to apply for restoration, in conjunction with all of the circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that allowing the application would be sufficient to uphold the public interest, confidence in the profession and the RCVS as a regulator, and protect the welfare of animals.
“As a result of all the factors set out, and taking into account the nature of the charges which relate to the alleged inadequate standard of clinical practice, the Committee decided that this is not a case in which there were wider issues relevant to the profession at large, such as those which had public policy implications and which required full consideration at a hearing.
“The Committee was satisfied that neither the public interest nor the welfare of animals demands that there be a full hearing in this case.
“Taking into account proportionality and weighing in the balance all the circumstances of the case, the interests of justice, the public interest, the need to uphold proper standards of conduct and performance, and the need to protect the welfare of animals, the Committee decided to grant the respondent’s application.”
Mr Bowles faced four charges, but did not respond to the College's notification about the hearing, so the Committee decided to proceed in his absence.
The first charge was that in 2020, while attending a farm in Lincolnshire in his capacity as an Official Veterinarian (OV), Mr Bowles carried out Intradermal Comparative Tuberculin (ICT) tests on a herd of cattle but failed to measure the skin thickness of all the cattle using callipers and failed to take and record measurements for the cattle.
The Committee was provided with evidence that Mr Bowles had, in earlier correspondence with the College, admitted that he had failed to follow Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) standard operating procedures for ICT testing at the farm and so the charge was found proven.
The second charge was that he then certified the results of the inaccurate ICT test he'd performed earlier.
The Committee found this charge proven on the basis that, without using callipers to measure skin thickness, he was not entitled to certify the test.
The third charge was that his conduct in relation to the first two charges was dishonest, misleading and risked undermining government testing procedures designed to promote public health and animal welfare.
The Committee found all elements of the charges proven.
The final charge was that Mr Bowles's conduct took place despite warnings, advice and re-training being given by the APHA.
These included: a letter sent to Mr Bowles’s by APHA in 2014 about the suspension of his OV status after he failed to comply with APHA rules; a letter sent by the APHA to Mr Bowles’s employer in October 2016 regarding issues of non-compliance it had found during a September 2016 audit; and the suspension of Mr Bowles’s OV duties by his employer, pending further training, following issues of non-compliance.
Given Mr Bowles’s history of non-compliance with APHA standard operating procedures and standards, the Committee found the charge proven.
The Committee found that charges 1 to 3 amounted to serious professional misconduct but that charge 4, while making the conduct in the other charges more serious, did not in and of itself constitute serious professional misconduct.
In determining the most appropriate sanction for Mr Bowles, the Committee found that he had paid ‘scant regard’ to the testing procedures set out by APHA and breached the RCVS certification requirements set out in the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons in ‘numerous and serious’ ways.
Hilary Lloyd, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee’s view is that the respondent’s conduct in refusing to follow the OV Instructions when testing cattle in May 2020 constituted conduct of an egregious kind.
"In addition, there are several aggravating elements which can be applied to his misconduct, including a risk to animal or human health; his lack of probity and integrity in certifying test results which he knew were non-compliant and unreliable; recklessness in reaching a conscious decision to ignore the OV Instructions; his failure to comply with the requirements of the position of trust and responsibility which attached to his APHA authorisation; and against a backdrop of sustained pattern of behaviour that displayed blatant disregard of the system that regulated TB testing by OVs.
"It follows that the respondent manifested no insight into the seriousness of his misconduct when acting as an OV.”
The Committee considered whether there were any mitigating factors regarding Mr Bowles’ conduct.
It took into account that Mr Bowles had not secured any financial advantage, that there was no actual harm to animals, and that he had a long career as a veterinary surgeon, although with a history of non-compliance.
It noted that there had been some late admissions of misconduct by Mr Bowles when he tendered an apology, but found this mitigation was undermined by the fact his explanations lacked consistency and that he had also initially asserted that he had used callipers during the testing.
Due to the seriousness of the non-compliance, the dishonesty and the potential risk to public health, the Committee considered that removing Mr Bowles from the Register was the only proportionate and appropriate response to the scale of misconduct.
Hilary added: “Given the amount of advice received and re-training which the respondent was required to undertake, he has already had ample opportunity to remediate his practice but has not done so.
"The Committee is therefore concerned that there is a very real risk of further repetition of this conduct in the future were he to be permitted to remain on the Register.
“The Committee’s concern in this regard stems from the fact that the dishonesty of which the respondent has been found guilty, was not dishonesty committed on the spur of the moment.
"The respondent had ample opportunities for reflection before resolving to act as he did.
"This places his acts of dishonesty in the most serious category.
“The public is entitled to expect that it can have confidence in the certifications of a veterinary surgeon who is carrying out a public duty on behalf of that public body.
"Indeed, that is the whole purpose behind the requirement that OVs undertake additional and specialised training before being permitted to undertake OV duties.”
Ms Gurrin faced two charges, the first being that she had issued prescriptions for Roaccutane tables, indicating they were for the treatment of an animal when they were in fact for a human.
The second charge was that Dr Gurrin’s conduct in relation to the first charge was dishonest and/or misleading, and took place in circumstances where Dr Gurrin was not professionally qualified to write a prescription for a human.
Ms Gurrin admitted the allegation in its entirety and the Committee therefore found it proved.
The College submitted that Dr Gurrin breached fundamental tenets of the Code of Professional Conduct and acted dishonestly and, as such, that the admitted facts amounted to disgraceful conduct.
The Committee accepted that Dr Gurrin’s conduct involved dishonesty, but took into account the context: that Dr Gurrin was seeking to help in continuing a course of medication that she understood to have been properly prescribed by a specialist physician.
Mitigating factors included the lack of artifice or sophistication in the drawing of the prescription and its presentation to the pharmacist, in that Ms Gurrin didn't invent an animal name or species, or any kind of elaboration or backstory when challenged by the pharmacist on the prescription.
In addition, there was no financial or other personal gain, it was a single isolated incident, it was a spur of the moment decision without reflection, no harm was caused or risked to any animal, Ms Gurrin had a long and previously unblemished career and lastly she showed insight into the offence.
The committee also took into account the character testimonials which showed Ms Gurrin not only to be an exceptional vet, but a dedicated professional who had nurtured a very strong team, and someone who is held in extraordinarily high regard by both her clients and colleagues.
There were no aggravating factors.
The Committee considered that the case was too serious to take no further action, but that there was no ongoing danger to the public or risk to animal health.
Kathryn Peaty, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee has reached the conclusion that it is appropriate to impose a reprimand and a warning in this case.
"It would serve no purpose to impose a more severe sanction of a suspension and deprive Dr Gurrin’s clients of her valuable service and to deprive Dr Gurrin of the opportunity to practise for however short a time.
"The Committee considered that it is right to recognise that this misconduct was an aberration in a fine career, which is not characteristic of this veterinary surgeon and which happened when she was off her guard and in circumstances when she was mistakenly trying to help another in what she thought was a safe way.
“The Committee therefore decided, in the particular circumstance of this case, to impose a reprimand and warning on the basis that it would be proportionate in order to maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.”
Ms Parody faced two charges, the first of which related to her treatment of a cat named Shadow and had multiple elements:
The second charge was that her conduct in relation to all parts of the first charge was dishonest.
At the outset of the hearing Ms Parody’s counsel admitted to the majority of the elements of the first charge, although denied she had removed the microchip in order to mislead others about Shadow’s identity.
Ms Parody also admitted that her failures to inform the owner that euthanasia had not been carried out, of the treatment plan, of the removal of the microchip and that she had taken Shadow home was dishonest.
However, she denied dishonesty in relation to failing to make adequate records.
The Committee went on to consider the facts of the remaining, contested charges.
After hearing evidence from a number of witnesses, the Committee concluded that it was not proven that Dr Parody removed the microchip in order to mislead others about his identity, and that, in this respect, she had therefore not acted dishonestly.
In relation to whether Ms Parody was acting dishonestly in relation to failure to make adequate clinical records, the Committee also found this not proven.
Having determined the facts of the case, the Committee went on to consider if the proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In terms of aggravating factors, it considered that there was actual injury to an animal – albeit small and while the cat was under sedation - and that Ms Parody had engaged in conduct that was in breach of a client’s trust.
In mitigation, the Committee considered the immense pressure that Ms Parody and her colleagues in the practice were under at that time due to the coronavirus pandemic and the fact that she had acted in a way which she thought was best for Shadow’s welfare and which clouded the rest of her decision making.
Furthermore, the Committee considered this was a single isolated incident, that she took the decision without the opportunity for full reflection and the length of time since the original incident.
However, it found Ms Parody guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to all the proven charges.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “However well-intentioned, Dr Parody made some serious errors of judgment with regard to her approach to Shadow and embarked upon a course of dishonest conduct, which started with her failure to inform the owner about her decision not to euthanase Shadow, was followed by her treatment of Shadow, including his castration and microchip removal, all without the consent of the owner, and ended with her taking Shadow home over Christmas, again without the owner’s consent.
"In addition, she failed to make adequate clinical records with regards to Shadow.”
The Committee then went on to consider the most appropriate sanction for Ms Parody.
It heard a large number of positive testimonials as to her character and professionalism from both clients and former and current work colleagues.
The Committee also considered further mitigating factors such as the fact she had no previous disciplinary issues, had a long and unblemished career both before and since this isolated incident, her open and frank admissions regarding some of the charges, the significant impact she displayed regarding her misconduct, and her genuine expressions of remorse and apology.
Paul Morris added: “The Committee recognises that there is a scale of seriousness of dishonesty and therefore gave careful consideration as to where Dr Parody’s dishonest conduct fell to be judged.
"The Committee was concerned with her conduct between 20 December and 31 December 2021, as found proved.
"What led to what she has admitted as dishonest behaviour, was her acting to protect the welfare of the cat.
“The Committee was confident that she most certainly did not set out to act dishonestly.
"She made an initial error of judgement and everything that followed flowed from that.
"What she went on to do was something of a panicky attempt to cover up what she had done initially, so that she could decide on how to rectify it but, the Committee was satisfied, all done with the best of intentions and in the best interests of the cat and its owner.
"She had not acted out of any personal or financial gain or malicious intent.
"She had created a mess and she was trying to sort that mess out.”
After deciding that a reprimand was the most appropriate and proportionate sanction to impose, Paul Morris concluded: “In all the, somewhat exceptional, circumstances of this case, the Committee was satisfied that a reprimand would provide adequate protection to animals, as it was satisfied Dr Parody was most unlikely to ever make such a flawed set of decisions again.
"The Committee was satisfied that Dr Parody does not represent a risk to animals going forward, indeed from the character evidence it is clear that she always puts the welfare of animals first.
"She has also shown, since this episode, that she can work under pressure and not resort to making bad decisions and thus the Committee considered the wider public interest would be served in this case by a reprimand.”
The guide explains:
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/features/standards-and-advice-update-advice-published-on-amended
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/veterinary-medicines-guidance-notes-vmgns
The awards fall into two categories, those which you need to be nominated for by other people and those which are also open to self-nomination:
Requiring nomination by another person:
Self-nominations allowed:
The deadline for the 2025 awards is Friday, 13 December 2024.
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/how-we-work/rcvs-honours-awards
The course has been made available after its authors, Dr Katherine Wakelin and Sarah Corthorne from the University of Surrey, received a Mind Matters Grant to conduct research which found it improved the mental wellbeing of veterinary professionals.
Katherine and Sarah will also be hosting a webinar from 7pm – 8pm on Tuesday 3rd September to discuss the importance of self-compassion, provide an overview of their research, as well as information on the course itself.
Katherine said: “Our recent randomised control trial has shown the course to significantly improve resilience and self-compassion and reduce rumination and self-criticism amongst veterinarians.
"Therefore, Sarah and I are delighted to now be disseminating the CFT course freely to the veterinary profession, so that as many people as possible are able to benefit from the evidence-based resource.
“Even though our research was conducted on veterinary surgeons, we hope that the course will be useful to all those working in the veterinary team as the content can be applied in a number of contexts.
“Our webinar will explain more about our research, as well as some of the science behind the effectiveness of the course in a veterinary context.
"So, if you are interested in learning more about how CFT may be able to help you and your team, both in a personal and professional capacity, please do come along.”
In order to access the online compassion course, individuals are invited to complete a short questionnaire before and after watching one video (10-15 minutes long) each day for 14 days. The aim of the video intervention is to develop self-compassion skills and reduce self-criticism. This will also allow Katherine and Sarah to evaluate the ongoing impact that the videos are having on those working in the sector.
https://vetmindmatters.org/resources/free-online-compassion-course-for-veterinarian-mental-wellbeing/
The first change has been made to paragraph 1.6 which now advises general practitioners to check whether the vet they are referring a case to is on the RCVS Specialist or Advanced Practitioner list, explaining the difference to the client and what sets them apart from other vets who might be prepared to accept a referral.
Also, practitioners who accept a referral should provide information to the referrer about the experience and status of those likely to be responsible for the case.
The guidance about conflicts of interest in paragraph 1.7 has also been amended such that referring surgeons should tell clients if they are referring their case to a practice owned by the same group.
There is new guidance about how vets and nurses talk about referral practitioners, with the new advice being to focus on accepted terms such as 'RCVS Specialist' and 'RCVS Advanced Practitioner', and avoid more general terms like 'referral surgeon' or 'consultant' to avoid confusion or implying that individuals hold more qualifications than they do.
Lastly, there is new guidance that vets may only use the name 'Specialist' in the name of their practice where there is genuine and meaningful involvement, and oversight, in case management by at least one RCVS specialist in all disciplines where any clinical services are offered under the business name.
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/advice-and-guidance/code-of-professional-conduct-for-veterinary-surgeons/supporting-guidance/referrals-and-second-opinions/
Dr Radev faced three charges concerning his treatment of an American Bulldog in 2021.
The first charge, which contained a number of sub-charges, was that he failed to provide appropriate and adequate care to the animal.
The second was that he failed to keep adequate records.
The final charge was that his failure to keep records was misleading and dishonest.
At the outset of the hearing Dr Radev admitted that, having recognised free fluid in the dog’s abdomen, he failed to take adequate and appropriate action and failed to aspirate the dog’s abdomen with regards to the possibility of it having septic peritonitis.
He also admitted writing the clinical notes approximately two months after the event.
After considering and rejecting an application by the RCVS to amend and withdraw elements of the first charge, the Committee then considered each of the remaining sub-charges in turn.
Sub-charge 1(a) was that Dr Radev repeatedly administered meloxicam to the dog when it had recently undergone intestinal surgery and had a recent history of vomiting.
The Committee found that this was not proven.
Dr Radev said it had been administered just once and the Committee was not satisfied so as to be sure that it was repeatedly administered.
Sub-charge 1(b) (i) was that Dr Radev failed to recognise free fluid in the dog’s abdomen as shown on an ultrasound scan.
The Committee found this not proven.
Sub-charge 1(c) (i) was that Dr Radev failed to recognise the possibility of septic peritonitis in the dog.
Sub-charge 1(e) was that Dr Radev failed to provide a full medical history when referring the dog to a different practice.
The Committee found the charge not proven.
Regarding charge 2 (ii), that Dr Radev had failed to include in clinical records a reference to the colonotomy surgery, the Committee found this charge not proven as it had been provided with clinical records disproving this charge.
Finally, regarding both aspects of charge 3, namely that Dr Radev had acted misleadingly and dishonesty, the Committee found this not proven.
The Committee then considered whether the charges that Dr Radev had admitted amounted to gross misconduct in a professional respect.
In all cases it found that, while Dr Radev’s conduct had fallen below what was expected of veterinary professionals, it did not fall so far below as to constitute serious professional misconduct.
Three members (one vet, one new grad and one nurse) are being sought to join a new engagement group tasked with raising awareness of the importance of CPD for veterinary surgeons and nurses, supporting members in how to reflect on their CPD as a way of consolidating learning, and considering plans for how the benefits of CPD and the VetGDP can be communicated to the professions.
The group will also oversee and update CPD and VetGDP guidance documents, as well as overseeing updates to the VetGDP Adviser and VetGDP Peer Reviewer training and guidance.
RCVS Council member Dr Olivia Cook MRCVS will be chairing the group.
She said: “The Engagement Group has been set up in recognition that, although the majority of the professions are engaged with meeting their CPD requirements and completing the VetGDP, there are still those who feel confused about the requirements or remain uncompliant for other reasons, and we would like very much to help them.
“Therefore, this is an exciting opportunity for anyone who wants to play an active part in advancing veterinary standards by ensuring that as many members of the professions as possible have the benefits of lifelong learning in their own practice and their ongoing work for animal health and welfare. In doing so they will help grow public confidence in the professions.
“From the VetGDP perspective, we’re particularly keen that there’s a strong peer-to-peer element, so that those who are doing the VetGDP, or have just recently completed it, are using their recent experience and understanding to evolve the policy and drive engagement.”
Applicants who are interested will have until Friday 30 August to apply to become members of the CPD and VetGDP Engagement Group and are invited to send a concise email to CPD@rcvs.org.uk explaining their experience and how they feel that can contribute to work of the committee.
The RCVS is looking for two Advanced Practitioners working in practice who have completed a designated CertAVP qualification to join the Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Practice (CertAVP) Subcommittee to help actively advance the standards and policies of the RCVS CertAVP.
Applicants who are interested also have until Friday 30 August to apply to become members.
Applicants are invited to send an email to certavp@rcvs.org.uk with a summary of their experience and what skills and knowledge you feel that you can bring to this committee.
Finally, the College is also looking to recruit examiners for the Statutory Membership Examination, from 2025 onwards.
Examiners need to have been Members of the RCVS for a minimum of three years and be familiar with the day one competences for new registrants and the standards expected of final year students and new graduates. Experience as an assessor or examiner is preferred, although not essential as training will be provided. The College is looking for examiners with knowledge across a range of species domains including equine, veterinary public health, farm and small animal.
Contact Jenny Soreskog-Turp, RCVS Postgraduate Lead, on j.soreskog-turp@rcvs.org.uk
All veterinary surgeons, nurses and students over the age of 18 were invited to participate by email, which elicited 2,781 complete responses and a further 631 partial responses, 1682 from vets, 328 from vet students, 1,369 from nurses and 553 from student vet nurses.
80% of respondents were female, 16.8% male, 1.4% non-binary, 0.8% genderfluid and 0.9% preferred not to say or to self describe.
93.3% were white, 2% were Asian or Asian British, 0.6% were black, black British, Caribbean or African.
The remainder identified as 'other ethnic group', mixed or multiple ethnic groups, or preferred not to say.
90.4% of participants worked within clinical veterinary practice, three-quarters in small animal practice.
Almost two-thirds worked part time.
Paradoxically, although around 50% of respondents described their physical or mental health as 'good' or 'very good', 75.6% considered themselves to have at least one disability or chronic condition (61% chronic, 48% physical, 39% mental health and 30% neurodivergent).
Female veterinary surgeons were significantly more likely to suffer from a mental health condition (48.3%) than males (19.2%).
Mental health conditions were far more common amongst the young (51% of those aged 18-29), than the old (28% of 50-59 year olds, declining to 9% of 70-79 year olds)
Veterinary nurses were more likely to say they have a mental health condition (47.3%), than veterinary surgeons (27.9%).
As with mental health, the proportion of respondents identifying as neurodivergent decreased with age (42.3% of respondents aged 18-29 vs 6.7% of those in the 70-79 age group).
Whilst overall, 29.8% identify as neurodivergent, the figure was notably higher (83.3%) amongst those who identify as non-binary or genderfluid.
The number of people with a physical condition varied less with age and gender, although of course, broadly speaking, age brings with it an increase in physical problems.
60% of participants said they are affected by their disability/chronic condition every day, and 68% agreed or strongly agreed that they had to make significant changes to their life to continue working.
The most frequently reported symptoms of disability/chronic condition were mental health (45.2%), pain (36.4%), learning, understanding or concentrating (33.8%), and stamina or energy limitations (32.3%).
When asked if they were treated different at work because of their disability or chronic condition, 49.5% said they had not and 34.7% said they had.
Of those who felt they had been treated differently, 45% thought that disclosing their condition had contributed to this.
18% of those in education and 36% of those in work said they had experienced discrimination, bullying or harassment because of their disability/chronic condition.
Discrimination, bullying or harassment was more likely to be reported by those with a mental health condition or who identify as neurodivergent (47% and 46%), than those with a physical or chronic condition (38% and 37%)
Perceived discrimination, bullying or harassment was most likely to have come from managers (76%) and colleagues (64%) compared to clients and 'other' (15%).
63% of respondents believed there was a strong or moderate understanding of the Equality Act at their workplace but 12% thought their employer had no knowledge or understanding.
45% thought their employer had strong or moderate understanding of the Access to Work scheme, while 27% reported no understanding at their workplace.
Examples of good practice were given by some respondents about their existing or previous workplaces. These included reasonable adjustments such as adjusted working hours, environment and task adaptations, alongside good communication, support (from colleagues, managers and external sources), and additional resources.
Gurpreet Gill, Leadership and Inclusion Manager at the RCVS, said: “While there are some sobering elements in this report, and some clear and unfortunate examples of poor practice and discrimination, the overwhelming feeling is that there is goodwill and a desire to help people out there in the professions, but sometimes a lack of understanding and knowledge on how best to do this.
"Of course, there are also some excellent examples of good practice in terms of putting in place adjustments and accommodations for employees and staff with disabilities, as well as for students on placements.
“Overall, this should be taken as a call for more members of the professions to familiarise themselves with the Equality Act 2010 (https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010) and its provisions.
Under this legislation, it is unlawful to discriminate against people with protected characteristics, including disability.
"The act sets out the legal requirement for workplaces and educational institutions, among others, to make reasonable adjustments to avoid disabled people being placed at a disadvantage.
“We will now be considering how we, as the regulator and Royal College, can best support members of the professions in understanding their rights and responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010, and what further training and education can be provided, looking at the RCVS Academy as a potential vehicle for doing so.”
Olivia Anderson-Nathan, a Director of BVCIS added: “Overall, the report demonstrates that although there are systemic issues that require a shift in workplace culture, there may be some relatively ‘easy wins’.
"For example, improving line manager knowledge of the Equality Act and providing reasonable adjustments that are typically inexpensive and simple to implement, such as providing seating and ergonomic equipment, and rota or shift changes.
"Many changes, like flexible working, will actually benefit everyone.
"Most importantly, employers and educators need to make sure that those with disabilities, neurodivergence, and chronic illnesses understand their rights and are given positive support to identify their needs.
"This means co-designing individualised adjustments and avoiding a one size fits all approach.
“BVCIS will continue our work to educate the profession, offering support and guidance for anyone not sure where to start.
"We also offer community support through our Veterinary Spoonholders Facebook page for disabled, chronically ill and/or neurodivergent people in the veterinary world so – please do come and join us if any of the experiences detailed in the report resonate with you.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/publications