Prominent RVN cleared of serious professional misconduct over dog care

A senior RVN has been cleared of serious professional misconduct despite being found to have acted without veterinary direction in the treatment of her own dog.

An RCVS disciplinary committee found Susan Howarth – a member of the college’s VN council – had relied on a colleague, George Aspey, to make appropriate arrangements for care to be provided.

But Mr Aspey was reprimanded following a four-day hearing held shortly before Christmas after he admitted treating the dog without veterinary supervision and compiling clinical records for his own pet instead.

Mrs Howarth took her dog, Nessa, to a My Vets Pets practice in Leigh, Greater Manchester, where Mr Aspey was working, in February 2023.

Former colleagues

Although she was not employed by the practice, the two were colleagues as lecturers at Harper Adams University, where she manages the veterinary nursing programme.

Mrs Howarth admitted allowing Mr Aspey to anaesthetise Nessa, placing a cannula in the dog and carrying out a descale and polish dental procedure.

But she denied those actions had occurred without veterinary direction or supervision as she “reasonably believed” Mr Aspey had obtained permission for the procedure and her involvement in Nessa’s care.

Documents from the hearing stated that Mrs Howarth had believed his actions fell within “the usual scope” of practice and had regarded the presence of a vet as “informal consultation”.

Not under their care

However, evidence provided by the college indicated that none of the practice’s vets had Nessa formally registered under their care at the time she was treated.

Mr Aspey admitted anaesthetising Nessa and prescribing or dispensing a POM-V product, meloxicam, without the direction or supervision of a registered vet.

He also admitted making clinical records relating to his own dog for the treatment, and applying his staff discount, despite Mrs Howarth insisting she expected to be treated as a “proper client”.

Although both nurses’ actions were deemed not to have met expected standards, only Mr Aspey was deemed guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

Illegal use

The committee noted the use of a POM-V medicine without veterinary direction was illegal and said Mr Aspey would have been “aware of the restrictions” in that area.

It also considered that his actions in compiling clinical records for his own dogs “attacked fundamental professional tenets”.

But it found he had shown “full insight” into his actions and concluded the risk of him engaging in similar conduct in the future was “extremely low”.

In Mrs Howarth’s case, the committee said she should have checked Nessa was formally registered with the practice and her error was based on a “readiness” to rely on Mr Aspey.

However, it concluded that her actions did not fall “far below” expected conduct standards.