FAQs

Given the unique challenges of treating wildlife, the Standards Committee has decided that groups of wildlife brought into wildlife centres may be treated as an exception to the general rule contained within paragraph 9(a) of the new guidance, which says a physical examination should be carried out at the time of prescribing.

Instead, the Committee’s view was that they may be treated in a similar way to production animals [see paragraph 9(b) of the new guidance]. The basis for this being that wild animals should be kept at the centre for as short a time as possible with handling kept to a minimum and, once released, cannot be monitored to 'see how they go'.

We are also mindful that depending on the circumstances, releasing animals without treatment might cause additional problems in the species population.   

In practice, this means that when prescribing antimicrobials for wildlife in rescue centres the veterinary surgeon does not have to examine the specific animal being prescribed for, but does need to have attended the premises and examined at least one representative animal recently enough to have current information and knowledge.

They also need to have an in-depth knowledge of the premises, the local environment and disease challenges in the area.

Please see from paragraph 23.12 of Chapter 23 of the supporting guidance in relation to claims of superiority/comparison which are a matter for the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) under the CAP Code.

Should the ASA make an adverse finding which is attributable to a veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse, including an appointed senior veterinary surgeon (see Chapter 17 of the supporting guidance), that veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse has a Code of Conduct obligation to disclose that adverse finding to the RCVS (i.e., to self-report).

As the RCVS is currently in temporary office space, we cannot guarantee at present where future meetings of RCVS Council will take place, although we are aiming to hold around 50% of these meetings virtually. However, more information about where the RCVS will be holding its committee and Council meetings will be published in due course.

As the RCVS is currently in temporary office space, we cannot guarantee at present where future meetings of VN Council will take place, although we are aiming to hold around 50% of these meetings virtually. However, more information about where the RCVS will be holding its committee and VN Council meetings will be published in due course.

For further information in relation to RVP and/or CVR or advice on whether a particular proposed procedure would be covered by this guidance, please contact the Secretary to the Sub-Committee via [email protected].

For further information in relation to ethics review of proposed veterinary clinical research studies, please contact the Secretary to the Panel via [email protected] or visit the Ethics Review Panel page.

No, you can do any combination of C-modules, although certain combinations are required for designated certificates.

Yes, you must demonstrate that you can communicate in English at an appropriate level. If your primary veterinary degree was taught and assessed in English then you may be granted exemption from language testing.

Candidates whose primary veterinary degree was not taught in English can demonstrate their English skills by taking either the academic version of the International Language Testing System (IELTS) or the veterinary version of the Occupational English Test (OET).

Please see the examination guidance for more information about these requirements.

Your practice should be an RCVS Approved Graduate Development Practice, meaning that they have at least one VetGDP Adviser within the practice. The training for the VetGDP Adviser is 20 hours of free, flexible, online training.

While the RCVS is not a representative body, unlike the British Veterinary Association and its divisions, it is important the views of the profession are understood. The College does this through consultations, surveys, and via the input of the professional members of RCVS Council and its committees.

An appointment system will ensure that Council Members come from those with an appropriate range of knowledge and expertise, including, crucially, front-line first-opinion practitioners.

Some other regulators have recruitment criteria that ensure not only appropriate expertise and knowledge but also ensures that its board members are recruited from across the UK, something not guaranteed by the current RCVS governance model.

An appointment system may also appeal to a wider range of candidates, as some veterinary surgeons who are highly qualified to be excellent members of a governing body may not also have the skillset or desire to campaign to be elected in a modern media environment.

The College’s principal purpose is to protect animal health and welfare, and to maintain public confidence in the veterinary professions. It does this by setting standards of professional conduct and veterinary care, by setting educational standards, by providing guidance on what is expected of veterinary professionals, and taking action where necessary where there are concerns about fitness to practise.

It must do so in a way that gives assurance to the public and government that it is acting in the interest of the public rather than the professions, where those interests may differ.

It is therefore appropriate that the College considers governance reform in line with the principles established for other regulators, both in the human health sector and elsewhere.

The RCVS is indeed unique as ‘a Royal College that regulates’, and this may be a justification for some variance from the usual principles of regulatory governance.

RCVS Council has already agreed that it should recommend the retention of a membership of 24 people, which is considerably above the norm, and is also considering whether to maintain a majority of registrant members.

However, the medical Royal Colleges are not regulators and therefore their governance arrangements may not need to reflect the aforementioned principles; they are therefore not useful comparators when considering RCVS governance reform.