Disciplinary case dismissed against Kent vet

The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons yesterday (28 April 2010) dismissed a case against a veterinary surgeon from Kent having found him not guilty of serious professional misconduct.

Mr Francois-Guillame Saulnier-Troff – formerly an employee of North Kent Referrals in Blue Bell Hill near Aylesford – was charged with concealing from his clients that a fragment of metal had been left in their dog’s body following surgery, and omitting any reference to that in the clinical records or notes.

At the hearing, the Committee heard that, during spinal surgery on Pippin, a Jack Russell terrier belonging to Mr and Mrs Bowers, a small metal fragment broke off a palpator and became lodged in the bony material. Mr Saulnier-Troff was unable to retrieve it.

However, Mr Saulnier-Troff did not inform Pippin’s owners of this occurrence, either during the telephone conversation on the 15^th of January immediately following the operation, or when he met with them for Pippin’s post-operative check on the 2^nd of February. He said that he had intended to discuss the fact with the owners when the dog was discharged and had requested that he be contacted when the owners came into the surgery. He had not been contacted, though, and on attending the practice two days later, found that Pippin had already been returned to his owners.

It was accepted by the Committee that Mr Saulnier-Troff had not considered the fragment of clinical significance, and that telling Mr and Mrs Bowers about it was not at the front of his mind at their subsequent meeting.

The Committee heard there was no reference to the fragment included in the clinical notes, discharge summary or referral report, but accepted that the discharge summary had not been prepared by Mr Saulnier-Troff and that the referral report had been drawn up and sent out without Mr Saulnier-Troff’s approval or personal signature.

In their findings, the Committee made no criticism of Mr Saulnier-Troff for the breakage or non-retrieval of the fragment, concluding that he came across as a skilled and conscientious veterinary surgeon and that he was fundamentally honest. The Committee also described as “honest and straightforwards throughout,” the accounts given by Mr and Mrs Bowers of their recollections of events. The Committee noted that Mr Saulnier-Troff had admitted that he ought to have told Mr and Mrs Bowers about the fragment and that he ought to have included details in the clinical notes.

Disciplinary Committee Chairman Mrs Alison Bruce said that they were “highly critical of the fact that Mr Saulner-Troff did not inform Mr and Mrs Bowers at any time of what had occurred or check that the clinical records had been completed either post-operatively or at the follow-up examination.”

“The matters, which Mr Saulnier-Troff has admitted, flow from a failure on his part to speak to Mr and Mrs Bowers after the discharge had taken place and to check that he had completed a full clinical record which included reference to part of the palpator being left in Pippin’s body,” Mrs Bruce continued, adding that this was “indeed conduct which falls short of the standard to be expected. However, in the opinion of this Committee his conduct does not fall so far short that it amounts to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”

Mrs Bruce concluded: “In these circumstances, the charge is dismissed.

For more information please contact:

Claire Millington / 020 7202 0783 / [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 Inquiry into Miss Kay, her first application for restoration and the Committee’s decision on her second and successful application, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/complaints/disciplinary-hearings.