Wirral vet's Register restoration application refused

The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons last week decided that a Wirral-based veterinary surgeon should not be restored to the RCVS Register, having previously struck him off for disgraceful professional conduct, as it was not convinced that he fully understood the matters which led to the removal of his name from the Register, or that he was clinically competent.

In July 2008, Leslie Higgott, of Wallasey, near Liverpool, was removed from the Register for failing to provide adequate clinical care to a Springer Spaniel. Additionally the committee found that Mr Higgott had failed to keep adequate clinical records or undertake continuing professional development, despite having been advised to do so on seven occasions by an RCVS Practice Standards Scheme inspector.

At the hearing, which concluded on 15 January, the Disciplinary Committee focused on several areas. Mr Higgott appeared to accept the seriousness of the findings and their effects upon himself and the veterinary profession, and he acknowledged that he had been out of his depth when treating the dog concerned. However, he failed to appreciate the effects of his actions on the dog and the client, and continued to assert that evidence accepted by the Committee in previous hearings was untrue.

The Committee considered whether Mr Higgott currently met minimum standards of clinical competence, and took note of Mr Higgott’s assertion, backed up by a detailed record card, that he had undertaken some 35 hours’ continuing professional development (CPD) over the past 12 months. The Committee did not, though, consider this training sufficient to put right the deficiencies in clinical competence identified when his name was taken off the Register.

The Committee also heard of the medical difficulties faced by Mr Higgott, and said that any future application for restoration would be assisted by an assessment of Mr Higgott’s health, and ability to work as a veterinary surgeon, from both a qualified medical practitioner and an occupational therapist. Mr Higgott was also advised by the Committee to undertake the specific steps it proposed with regards to his professional development, before making any further restoration application, including a minimum of eight days per month for a period of not less than ten months doing observational practice at an RCVS-accredited veterinary surgery or hospital.

Chairing the Disciplinary Committee, Mrs Alison Bruce, said: “The Committee does not consider that the restoration of Mr Higgott’s name to the Register would protect the public or the future welfare of animals.” Speaking of the reasons why the Committee had decided not to restore Mr Higgott to the Register, Mrs Bruce said that the Committee’s “principal concerns relate to Mr Higgott’s clinical competence as a veterinary surgeon.”

These concerns had been found proved at a previous hearing and “are so serious that it would require persuasive evidence to reassure the Committee that the level of his competence had undergone a significant improvement following the decision to remove his name from the Register,” continued Mrs Bruce, noting that “his answers to clinical questions from professional members of the Committee on anaesthesia and analgesia, amongst other matters, caused it real concern notwithstanding that he had attended CPD courses on those subjects in May 2009.”

For more information, please contact:
Claire Millington (020 7202 0783) c.millington@rcvs.org.uk
Communications Department, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons

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 Mr Higgott and the Committee’s findings at that time, plus the decision made this week, can be found via www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.