Serious professional misconduct and negligence explained

1. RCVS jurisdiction - serious professional misconduct 

I. The RCVS’s Preliminary Investigation Committee (PIC) and Veterinary Nurse Preliminary Investigation Committee (VN PIC) have duties and responsibilities, set out under the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 and the RCVS Supplemental Royal Charter of 2015 respectively, to conduct a preliminary investigation into every disciplinary case (that is to say, a case in which it is alleged that the veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse is liable to have their name removed from the Registers, or to have their registration suspended), and to decide whether the case should be referred to the Disciplinary Committee.

II. A disciplinary case is therefore a case in which a veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse may be guilty of “disgraceful conduct in a professional respect”, affecting their fitness to practise, which is more commonly referred to as serious professional misconduct.

III. The courts have accepted that serious professional misconduct is conduct that has fallen far short (or far below) the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse. There is no set definition or list of what amounts to serious professional misconduct, but it could include, for example, very poor professional performance where there are serious departures from the standards set out in the RCVS Codes of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons and Veterinary Nurses, fraud or dishonesty, criminal convictions or cautions, or physical or mental health problems affecting ability to work.

IV. The test for serious professional misconduct is higher than the test for negligence (see below). The RCVS has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on allegations of negligence, only serious professional misconduct.

2. Negligence

I. Negligence is what might be considered to be conduct that falls short (or below) the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse, but not far short of (or far below) that standard, such that it amounts to serious professional misconduct, affecting fitness to practise.

II. In veterinary practice, negligence may arise where:

a. The veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse owes a duty of care (the normal skill and judgement that would be expected of the average or reasonably competent veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse) to the client and/or the patient and/or in some cases to third parties; and,

b. There is a breach of that duty; and,

c. In considering the duty and alleged breach, various factors may be considered, for example:

·  The standards of the profession at that time,

·  There may be more than one accepted approach to the clinical management,

·  The veterinary surgeon’s or veterinary nurse’s level of expertise,

·  The veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse is not necessarily expected to have the latest journal article on the topic, and the practice is not necessarily expected to have the latest equipment; and,

d. Loss or damage was suffered and was caused by the breach of duty; and,

e. The loss or damage was reasonably foreseeable.

III. Claims for negligence may be resolved between the client and the veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse, potentially with the involvement of the veterinary surgeon’s or veterinary nurse’s professional indemnity insurer.

IV. If matters cannot be resolved, the parties may consider contacting the Veterinary Client Mediation Service (VCMS), which is a free and voluntary alternative dispute resolution scheme. The VCMS does not have powers to adjudicate on claims of negligence, or to award compensation or damages, but it may be able to mediate an agreeable resolution between the parties.

V. If matters remain unresolved, the client may need to consider taking legal advice on the merits of pursuing a claim for negligence in the civil courts.