Since May 2017 the Board has reviewed and determined 40 complaints. Of these complaints 29 were dismissed after investigation, 8 veterinarians were found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct and cautioned and 3 veterinarians were found guilty of professional misconduct and reprimanded.

The objects of the Veterinary Practice Act 2003 (Act) are to regulate the provision of veterinary services to promote animal welfare, to ensure that acceptable standards are met by veterinary practitioners so as to meet the public interest and to provide public health protection.

Any person (including the Board) may make a complaint against a veterinary practitioner in respect of the veterinary practitioner’s conduct. Part 5 of the Act sets out how the Board deals with complaints.

The Board must conduct an investigation into each complaint made under this part of the legislation. Following an investigation the Board has the power to dismiss a complaint. If the Board is satisfied that the veterinary practitioner is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct the Board may:

i. Reprimand or caution the veterinary practitioner

ii. Impose a fine on the veterinary practitioner not exceeding $5000

iii. Impose conditions on the veterinary practitioner’s registration with respect to the practice of veterinary science

iv. Require the veterinary practitioner to complete specified educational courses

v. Require the veterinary practitioner to report on his or her veterinary practice at specified times, in a specified manner and to specified persons.

If the Board is satisfied that the veterinary practitioner is guilty of professional misconduct of a kind that is of sufficiently serious nature to justify the suspension or cancellation of a veterinary practitioner’s registration, the Board must apply to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) for a disciplinary finding.

The Board is very mindful of the stress and impact that a complaint investigation can have on the veterinary practitioner and the complainant. The investigation process can be quite protracted to ensure the complainant and veterinarian have every opportunity to put their cases and the Board may seek expert opinion when required. The complaints process can be further lengthened by delays in responding to Board requests for information. The Board has the power to summons records and witnesses.

The 6 circumstances behind the 8 findings of unsatisfactory professional conduct that received cautions and fines up to $1000 are summarised below:

1. A veterinarian was found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct in that a lack of adequate knowledge, skill, judgment or care in their practice of veterinary science resulted in breaches of Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966 (s 36AA) and Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Regulation 2008 (cl 26 and cl 29). The veterinarian was essentially acting as a pharmacy and allowed unauthorised persons access to restricted substances in their absence, failed to store restricted substances in an area which the public didn’t have access and failed to ensure drug labels complied with the legislation. Only registered pharmacists can dispense restricted substances on a prescription. See https://www.vpb.nsw.gov.au/2017-june-supplying-veterinary-medicines-other-veterinarians

2. A veterinarian was found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct in that their failure to correctly interpret radiographs demonstrated a lack of skill, judgment or care. The veterinarian failed to identify a thoracic foreign body when interpreting their radiographs.

3. A veterinarian was found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct in that their failure to ensure that all the swabs packed into the horse’s wound were removed demonstrated a lack of skill, judgment or care. The horse had swabs packed into a bleeding wound that was sutured and later became infected. The Board recommends that when swabs are placed in a wound that the number of swabs used should be placed in the medical record in order to ensure they or another veterinarian taking over the treatment of the animal are aware of the presence and likely number of these swabs.

4. A veterinarian was found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct in that their management of a case presenting with signs highly suggestive of tick paralysis demonstrated a lack of skill, judgment or care. The veterinarian failed to identify a tick on the patient or to perform further investigations, treatment or offer referral when the patient’s clinical condition was deteriorating.

5. A veterinarian was found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct in that they failed to ensure that all records of any consultation, procedure or treatment were retained for at least 3 years after they are made. Computerised records were lost due to computer failure and no backups were kept. Handwritten records were destroyed after they were entered into the computer. Veterinarians must ensure adequate systems are in place when relying on technology to ensure all records are retained for at least 3 years.

Three veterinarians were found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct in that their failure to comply with poisons and therapeutic goods legislation demonstrated a lack of adequate knowledge, skill, judgment or care in the practice of veterinary science. They failed to record all drugs of addiction dispensed to patients in the required register. The hospital superintendent also failed in their responsibilities to perform periodic stocktakes of drugs of addiction (S8).

Three veterinarians were found guilty of professional misconduct, reprimanded and received fines of up to $3000

1. A veterinarian was reprimanded and fined for their treatment of a boarding dog that began vomiting and was found to be unable to walk. The dog was treated on the assumption it had tick paralysis and subsequently died. The veterinarian was found guilty of professional misconduct:        

a. In breach of clause 5 of Veterinary practitioners code of professional conduct in that they failed to utilise the skills of colleagues by referral

b. In breach of clause 16 of Veterinary practitioners code of professional conduct in that they failed to inform the person responsible for the care of the animal of the likely extent and outcome of the veterinary services

c.In breach of clause 4 of Veterinary practitioners code of professional conduct in that their use of oxygen therapy was not to current standards

d. In breach of the Veterinary Practice Act 2003 (s 35(k)) in that there was no evidence that any other diagnoses were considered or investigations performed in a dog that was clinically deteriorating.
 

2. A veterinarian was reprimanded and fined for their dental treatment of a dog and poor record keeping.  They were found guilty of professional misconduct in that their actions were:

a. In breach of clause 4(1)(b) of Veterinary practitioners code of professional conduct in that the descaling procedure performed on the dog was not carried out in accordance with current standards.

b. In breach of clause 15(1), clause 15(2)(a) and clause 15(2)(b) of Veterinary practitioners code of professional conduct in that they failed to ensure a detailed record of the consultation was made and that the record was legible and in sufficient detail to enable another veterinary practitioner to continue the treatment of the animal and that they failed to include the results of any diagnostic tests, analysis and treatments.
 

3. A veterinarian was reprimanded and fined following the post anaesthetic death of an elderly cat following a dental procedure. The veterinarian was found guilty of professional misconduct in breach of clause 4 of Veterinary practitioners code of professional conduct in that their management of the case was not to current standards by failing to offer pre anaesthetic testing, by attempting to recover a cat from general anaesthetic in a cat box and failing to provide analgesia after a tooth extraction.

All licenced veterinary hospitals must have a superintendent who is appointed by the licence holder. Traditionally the hospital superintendent is one of the licensees (owners) but increasingly in larger practice groups an employed veterinarian is appointed as the superintendent. Being a hospital superintendent is a significant commitment as set out in Responsibilities of a Veterinary Hospital Superintendent which is sent to all superintendents on appointment and available from the Board’s website. Superintendents can have a complaint raised against them for failing in their responsibilities and lack of knowledge does not provide an adequate defence.

Even if they are not the superintendent, an employer must not direct or incite a veterinary practitioner to engage in conduct in the course of professional practice that would constitute unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct. Under the Veterinary Practice Act 2003 (s 15), actions of an employee are taken to be actions of the employer unless the employer establishes that they had no knowledge of those actions and the employer could not, by the exercise of due diligence, have prevented those actions.