Bedfordshire-based vet removed from Register for series of clinical and record-keeping failures

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed that the Registrar remove a Bedfordshire-based veterinary surgeon after he both admitted, and was found guilty of, a number of charges relating to clinical failures, poor record keeping and dishonesty.

Siew Loong Ng appeared before the Disciplinary Committee from Monday 2 to Friday 20 June 2025 in respect of seven charges against him.

In summary, the charges against him were:

1.     Between 1 July 2020 and 31 August 2020, in relation to a collie bitch he was treating, Mr Ng: failed to clean her wound prior to surgery (not proved), failed to provide adequate analgesia (not proved) and failed to keep adequate records in relation to the dog’s examination, surgery and other procedures (found partly proved).

2.      Between February 2020 and May 2021, in relation to dogs and/or puppies belonging to a client he:

-        failed to record what surgery was performed and/or the technique used in cherry eye surgery performed on one or more of six of the puppies (not proved);

-        performed cherry eye surgery by amputating the Harderian gland without sufficient evidence of it being cherry eye and without attempting other forms of treatment first (admitted);

-        failed to keep records of which puppies had been seen and received treatment (not proved);

-        failed to record details relating to caesarean sections performed on 11 dogs (not proved);

-        failed to record which puppy or puppies were examined and/or to make adequately detailed records for an animal which presented with cherry eye (not proved);

-        failed to make adequate records relating to a dog or dogs presented in relation to gaining a health passport for Ireland as well as cherry eye and caesarean section (proved);

-        failed to make adequate records in relation to litters of puppies which had been vaccinated in order to enable a reliable duplicate vaccination certificate to be supplied if required (proved).

3.      In or around April 2021, failed to make adequate clinical records in relation to a rabbit he treated (proved).

4.      On 8 May 2021 in relation to a labradoodle, he failed to offer a reasonable range of options for diagnosis and/or treatment (proved); he amended clinical records for the dog at a later date without making it clear the changes were retrospective and, in doing so, was dishonest (proved) and misleading (admitted); and failed to maintain adequate clinical records for the dog (admitted).

5.      Between 3 June 2022 and 6 June 2022 in relation to a six-year-old dobermann, he undertook caesarean surgery without trained assistance (admitted), without informing the owner with adequate notice he had no trained assistance (proved), and without offering referral to an out-of-hours service (admitted). Furthermore, he failed to take adequate steps to treat the dog when her condition deteriorated after surgery (admitted), and failed to maintain clinical records (admitted).

6.      Between May 2020 and 30 June 2021, he: intubated patients for caesarean section surgery after only sedating them and not under general anaesthesia (admitted); he began the surgery without trained assistance (proved); failed to make adequate clinical records in respect of surgeries performed on 25 April 2021 (proved); deleted the clinical records of two patients (admitted); failed to make and/or deleted clinical records in relation to five animals he performed caesarean surgery on (admitted).

7.      His conduct in relation to deleting the two clinical records was dishonest and misleading (admitted).

During the course of the hearing, Mr Ng admitted some aspects of the charges against him, including that he had deleted two patient records and that this was dishonest and misleading. The Committee then determined the facts of the rest of the charges after hearing evidence from witnesses and Mr Ng himself, as well as expert witnesses. Having considered all the evidence, it determined which elements of the charges were proved, and which were not proved.

“The Committee has concluded that the respondent’s behaviour was fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon. In view of the nature and gravity of the Committee’s findings in this case, removal from the Register is necessary to ensure the protection of animals and the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.”

The Committee then went on to consider whether the admitted and charges found proved amounted to serious professional misconduct both individually and cumulatively. In doing so it considered that the charges against Mr Ng fell into three broad categories – deficiencies in clinical care, deficiencies in record keeping, and dishonesty. In respect of all three, it found the admitted and charges found proved amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In considering the most appropriate and proportionate sanction for Mr Ng, the Committee considered the aggravating and mitigating factors in the case. In terms of aggravation, the Committee found that Mr Ng’s conduct had directly caused harm to animals and also created risk of further harm, and, furthermore, noticed there were three instances of dishonesty.

Paul Morris, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee noted that there were three instances of dishonest behaviour in relation to clinical records. The amendment of the clinical record in the labradoodle’s case was particularly serious. This alteration was made at a time when the respondent knew that the owner was dissatisfied with the treatment the dog had received and was complaining about the lack of therapeutic intervention. The alteration presented a false account of the owner’s attitude towards immediate therapeutic intervention. Conduct of this kind was liable to damage trust in the profession.”

In mitigation, the Committee took into account the sense of pressure Mr Ng felt following a financial dispute with his relative in respect of the veterinary practice, his long career as a veterinary surgeon and the high regard with which he was held by those who provided testimonials on his behalf. The Committee acknowledged Mr Ng’s assertions that he now understood his failings and his expressions of remorse for the harm he had caused and that these indicated the beginnings of insight.

However, in respect of the clinical deficiencies, the Committee found that various aspects of Mr Ng’s approach to treating conditions such as diabetes and cherry eye were inadequate and out-of-date, and that there was little in his continuing professional development (CPD) record or his statements to suggest he had attempted to improve these deficiencies.

Ultimately, the Committee found that Mr Ng’s conduct was so serious that removal from the Register was the most appropriate sanction.

Paul Morris added: “The Committee has concluded that the respondent’s behaviour was fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon. In view of the nature and gravity of the Committee’s findings in this case, removal from the Register is necessary to ensure the protection of animals and the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.”

Please note: this news story is intended to be a summary of the hearing to assist in understanding the case and the Committee's decision. The full details can be found on our disciplinary hearings page.