Gwynedd vet reprimanded for reckless certification

The Disciplinary Committee (DC) of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons last week [18 June 2009] issued a reprimand to a veterinary surgeon for reckless certification of an equine passport, having found her to have been "wholly indifferent" as to whether the horse had been vaccinated properly against equine influenza.

Eleri Wyn Jones graduated from the University of Liverpool and qualified as a veterinary surgeon in 2006, before joining The Veterinary Practice on Bala Road in Dolgellau, Gwynedd, where she was also an authorised Local Veterinary Inspector (LVI).

The principal of that practice is Iwan Parry, who himself was the subject of a DC hearing involving false certification earlier this year, for which he received a one-month suspension from the Register.

The Committee heard how, in late 2007, as Ms Jones was leaving the practice to begin her rounds, she was asked by a non-veterinary colleague to certify in a horse passport that two vaccinations for equine influenza had been administered.

The horse in question was being liveried by a regular client of the practice, to whom the practice regularly dispensed veterinary vaccines (although Ms Jones was unaware of this), but had been recently purchased by someone who was not a registered client.

In evidence, Ms Jones admitted the certification process took her only 30 seconds and that she did not obtain any further information about the certification, either from clinical or non-clinical colleagues; nor did she check any other documentation before signing the passport, but assumed the vaccinations had been administered by a veterinary colleague.

The Committee had to decide whether Ms Jones had acted recklessly, and to do so, Ms Jones’ Counsel suggested the Committee would need to be satisfied that she "did not care less" whether or not the vaccinations had been given by a veterinary surgeon before signing the passport.

In reaching its decision, the Committee took into account the fact Ms Jones, on her own evidence, was generally familiar with RCVS guidance on certification and, as an authorised Local Veterinary Inspector, had certification training.

It stated: "Whilst we recognise that Ms Jones received little or no mentoring from Mr Parry, we are satisfied that she would have been aware of the importance of veterinary certification.

She was also aware that Mr Parry had been suspended as an LVI, due to certification issues, which had affected her own authorisation."

In view of these facts, and that Ms Jones made no attempt to obtain verification from any other source despite knowing she had not performed the vaccinations herself, the Committee decided that Ms Jones had been "wholly indifferent" to proper vaccination procedures and was therefore guilty of disgraceful professional conduct for reckless certification.

In reaching its decision on sanction, the Committee wished to remind members that cases involving improper certification would ordinarily result in suspension or removal from the Register.

"We strongly disapprove of the circumstances in which Ms Jones certified this horse. Clients, and external bodies, are entitled to rely upon the integrity of the veterinary surgeon in not certifying that horses have been vaccinated unless they have carried out the vaccinations themselves, or have obtained full and proper evidence that vaccination has been carried out by another veterinary surgeon," it said.

In mitigation, however, the Committee took into account Ms Jones’ age and inexperience, her previously good record, her good character and the significant number of supporting references from colleagues and clients alike.

It was also mindful that any sanction’s main purpose was to protect animal welfare and maintain public confidence in the profession, rather than to punish.

Nigel Swayne, chairing the Committee, concluded: "This is not a case where undertakings for training or monitoring are required. This isolated incident was a fateful misjudgement on a single occasion.

"We consider that the sanction most proportionate to the nature and extent of the charge, the public interest and the interests of Ms Jones is a reprimand."

For more information please contact: Ian Holloway, 020 7202 0727 / [email protected]

Notes for Editors

1. The RCVS is the regulatory body for veterinary surgeons in the UK and deals with issues of professional misconduct, maintaining the register of veterinary surgeons eligible to practise in the UK and assuring standards of veterinary education.

2. RCVS disciplinary powers are exercised through the Preliminary Investigation and Disciplinary Committees, established in accordance with Schedule 2 to the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (the 1966 Act). The RCVS has authority to deal with three types of case:

a) Fraudulent registration

b) Criminal convictions

c) Allegations of disgraceful professional conduct

3. The Disciplinary Committee is a constituted judicial tribunal under the 1966 Act and follows rules of evidence similar to those used in a court of law.

4. The burden of proving an allegation falls upon the RCVS, and the RCVS must prove to the standard that the Committee is sure.

5. A respondent veterinary surgeon may appeal a Disciplinary Committee decision to the Privy Council within 28 days of the date of the decision. If no appeal is received, the Committee’s judgment takes effect after this period.

6. Further information, including the original charges against Ms Jones, and the Committee’s findings and decision on sanction can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary