Disciplinary Committee postpones judgement of Hertfordshire vet

The Disciplinary Committee has this week decided to postpone judgement for a period of two years on a Hertfordshire-based veterinary surgeon, who was charged with the inadequate care of a dog.

The Disciplinary Committee made its decision regarding Mr Amir Kashiv, from Vets & Pets, Broxbourne, Hertfordshire, on Tuesday 13 December 2016.

At the outset of the hearing, Mr Kashiv denied all aspects of the charges against him. During the course of the inquiry, some heads of charge were not pursued and some he admitted, leaving the remaining heads of charge to be determined [full details are set out in the Notes for Editors, below].

There were a number of fundamental failings in Mr Kashiv’s clinical competence which are required to be addressed during the period of postponement.

Disciplinary Committee

The charges concerned the treatment of a Scottish Terrier, called Tanzy, whose owner, Mrs Greenhill, brought her in to see Mr Kashiv on 5 March 2015. Mrs Greenhill was concerned about blood in Tanzy’s urine and swellings in her mammary glands. After carrying out a cytopathology test, Mr Kashiv advised Mrs Greenhill that Tanzy would require surgery to remove the mammary glands. There were no further tests conducted, and no alternatives to surgery suggested.

On 13 March Mr Viviani, another veterinary surgeon at Vets & Pets, therefore undertook a right-side mammary strip on Tanzy, discharging her the following day. On 17 March Mrs Greenhill brought Tanzy back in for a post-operative check and was seen by Ms Kostadinova, a locum veterinary surgeon, who found her to be in good condition.

On 20 March Mrs Greenhill then became concerned about Tanzy’s deteriorating condition and returned her to see Mr Kashiv. He admitted Tanzy for observation over the weekend but did not conduct any further tests at that stage, apart from radiography on 22 March. The hospitalisation records were of poor quality and substantially incomplete.

On 23 March Mr Kashiv then informed Mrs Greenhill that Tanzy could be discharged, although he recommended an MRI scan to assist in the diagnosis; this was declined on cost grounds. He did not however explain clearly to Mrs Greenhill that Tanzy’s prognosis was bleak, and did not give adequate home care instructions.

Tanzy continued to deteriorate, and on 24 March Mrs Greenhill took Tanzy to the RSPCA Harmsworth Hospital where Mrs Favy, a veterinary surgeon, conducted tests which showed that Tanzy was in renal failure. She then called Mrs Greenhill and recommended that Tanzy was put to sleep, which was then performed in Mrs Greenhill’s presence.

The Committee found that Mr Kashiv had failed to conduct the necessary investigations when Tanzy was admitted from 20 to 23 March 2015, being satisfied that, by the time Tanzy had been hospitalised for a period of three days, it was mandatory for a blood test to have been performed, given her marked deterioration [head of charge 2(a)].

The Committee also found while Mr Kashiv did express his opinion that Tanzy’s prognosis was poor, he did not give the full explanation required in the circumstances of this case to enable Mrs Greenhill to understand fully the prognosis [head of charge 2(c)]. The Committee also considered that Tanzy was not in a fit state to be discharged on 23 March 2015 [head of charge 3], and that he had failed to keep sufficiently clear and/or detailed and/or accurate records [head of charge 4].

After full consideration, the Committee found that Mr Kashiv’s actions amounted to serious professional misconduct, and was satisfied that his actions fell far short of the conduct to be expected of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon in respect of heads of charge 1, 2 and 3 but not 4.

Although it was concerned “about the culture of care in the practice, in particular not having in place proper protocols and procedures and without necessary support from properly trained staff”, in deciding on appropriate sanction, the Committee was satisfied that there were “a number of serious misjudgements by Mr Kashiv in this case”.

The Committee decided to postpone judgement for a period of two years, whilst recommending that Mr Kashiv agree to undertake a structured programme to benefit his clinical practice including a Personal Development Plan, mentoring, practice visits, additional CPD and regular reports to the Disciplinary Committee.

Non-compliance with these undertakings may result in the hearing being resumed at a date earlier than the two-year period.

Stuart Drummond, Chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee considers that Mr Kashiv is a dedicated veterinary surgeon, as evidenced by the large number of testimonials, and that he provides a valuable service to the community, particularly with rescue animals.

“Nevertheless, the Committee considers that there were a number of fundamental failings in Mr Kashiv’s clinical competence which are required to be addressed during the period of postponement. For the reasons set out above the Committee considers that Mr Kashiv’s clinical practice will benefit from a structured programme over the period of postponement, whilst protecting the welfare of animals, maintaining public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct.”