The charge against Ms Law was that in November 2017, having performed surgery on Kiwi, a German Shepherd/Wolfhound-cross dog, to address gastric dilation volvulus (GDV), she failed to obtain informed consent to the entirety of the surgical process and management, including post-operative aftercare.
The charge also stated that she failed to provide adequate analgesia to Kiwi before, during or after the surgery, failed to provide appropriate and adequate fluid therapy to Kiwi, failed to offer an appropriate and adequate post-operative care plan and/or post-operative transfer for Kiwi to another practice and failed to inform the owners that there would be nobody present at the practice to provide post-operative monitoring and aftercare for Kiwi for approximately seven hours during the night.
Finally the charge stated that Ms Law allowed Kiwi to remain at the practice overnight from 12:30am to 07:45am without adequate monitoring or post-operative aftercare.
Ms Law admitted some of the charges against her, including that she had failed to obtain informed consent, failed to offer an appropriate and/or adequate post-operative care plan, failed to inform the owners that there would be nobody present at the practice and allowed Kiwi to remain at the practice overnight without adequate monitoring and/or post-operative aftercare. However, she denied that she failed to provide adequate analgesia or fluid therapy to Kiwi.
The Committee found all of the charges proved, with the exception of failing to provide adequate analgesia during the perioperative period.
Having considered the facts, the Committee then moved on to consider whether the admitted and proven charges against Ms Law amounted to serious professional misconduct, taking into account any aggravating and mitigating factors. The aggravating features were that, as a result of Ms Law’s failures in relation to analgesia and fluid therapy, there was either actual injury to Kiwi, or a risk of such injury.
In mitigation, the Committee considered that she promptly and accurately diagnosed GDV, and proceeded to perform the necessary emergency surgery. The Committee considered that the charges related to a single isolated incident and that Ms Law has had an unblemished career to date. They also noted that Ms Law had made open and frank admissions as to the majority of the charges.
The Committee found that the conduct of Ms Law set out in the majority of the charges did not amount to serious professional misconduct. However, in the judgement of the Committee, Ms Law’s conduct in allowing Kiwi to remain at the practice overnight without adequate monitoring or post-operative aftercare did amount to serious professional misconduct.
Jane Downes, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: "The Committee considers that the respondent (Ms Law) has insight into the serious mistake that she made in failing to ensure that Kiwi was checked or monitored overnight. The Committee has found that this was a single isolated incident, which involved a serious lapse of clinical judgement, which will probably stay in the mind of the respondent for the rest of her career.
"The respondent has been in practice for some nine years now, and apart from this incident, there is no suggestion that the respondent has fallen short of the standards expected of her on any other occasion. The Committee does not consider that there is a risk that the respondent is likely to leave an animal overnight after major surgery again, without ensuring that it is checked during that time, and, as such, the Committee considers that there is no future risk to the welfare of animals so far as the respondent is concerned."
The Committee considered that the finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect in this case is too serious for no further action to be taken, having regard to the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct.
The Committee therefore concluded that the appropriate sanction in this case was to issue a reprimand to Ms Law, in relation to the finding of serious professional misconduct.
Jane Downes added: "The Committee considers that this sanction, coupled with the findings of fact and disgraceful conduct made against the respondent, is sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards of conduct. The Committee does not consider it necessary to issue a warning to the respondent about her future conduct, on the basis that the Committee has concluded that there is no risk of repetition."
There were three charges against Ms Creese, all pertaining to the period between July 2016 and November 2017.
The first charge was that she failed to ensure that there were adequate systems and processes in place for out-of-hours’ care for in-patients.
The second charge was that she publicised that the practice had "24 hour care provided by our vets at our practice" and/or "Care 24/7 for your pets" on its website, which suggested that staff were present at the practice 24 hours a day when they were not and as such publicity was dishonest and/or misleading.
The third charge against Ms Creese was that she failed to ensure that Kiwi's owners were informed about arrangements at the practice for out-of-hours’ care for in-patients.
At the outset of the hearing, Ms Creese denied all the charges against her.
After hearing evidence from relevant witnesses, the Committee considered that the practice did have in place systems and processes for out-of-hours care for in-patients and that there was no evidence of repeated or ignored failures of these systems and processes. The Committee therefore found the charges against Ms Creese not proved and all three were dismissed.
PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vets.
Organisation with Vetsnow employed President uses Vetsnow employed 'expert witness' to scrutinise independent practice's out of hours service. Fair trial? Wonder how many of the dwindling number of independents valiantly striving to continue to provide their own out of hourse service will read this and feel a step closer to offering up their clients to the VetsNow machine. Doesn't sit well with me.
Sad for the owner, but very worrying for anyone still trying to provide their own OOH cover in a small practice.
I'd have told the owner that no one would have been monitoring the dog constantly, but otherwise would (and will) have been guilty of many of their crimes (in a significant number of "out of hours" operations, both successful and otherwise, over the last 25 years.)
I don't like the RCVS use of "Specialists" to judge General Practitioners.
(Particularly when the specialist is in the employ of VetsNOW, and the RCVS President also happens to be CD of VetsNOW.
I mean, what motivation could they possibly have for scaring independent practices to give up OOH work?)
I was slightly confused by there being 2 Williams (Prof and Mr) as Expert witnesses.
Now I've re-read, I feel assuaged that the condemned have been judged by both a practitioner, and a specialist.
(Bit of a shame though that the practitioner witness has also sold out to IVC, and thus has become entwined in our VetsNOW conspiracy theory)
Specialist thought the IV fluid use was inadequate, the practitioner thought it was ample. Suprised that the RCVS are getting dragged in micromanaging clinical judgement.
7 hours is too long to leave a drip machine on it's own. If we're relying on the competence of drip machines, perhaps we should check on all patients on fluids every 10 minutes. Perhaps that RCVS might want to clarify how long is sufficient to leave a hospitalised animal on fluids between checks. Seems wrong to work solely on a results basis ie. the patient died so you didn't check on it often enough.
The specialist didn't mention Previcox as analgesia in his report, and then was dismissive of it in oral evidence.
So long as the public perception is that the dog died a painful lonely death and no one's been punished for it, then I'm sure that justice is done, and that public confidence in the profession can be maintained.
Animal dies,vet's career destroyed.Helped by sanctimonious specialists eager to sink the boot in.Ever wonder why suicide rates are so high in our profession.Would be fascinated to know the clinical outcomes of the specialists from some of their peers.What a lottery!