28 Mar 2023
An RCVS disciplinary committee was “not satisfied” the cases fell sufficiently below required standards to justify the designation.
Allister Webb
Job Title
A Norfolk-based vet has been cleared of disgraceful conduct over the care given to two dogs at her practice five years ago, one of which was later euthanised.
An RCVS disciplinary committee found Katharine Power had performed surgery on one of the animals that was outside her competence and subjected the other to an excessive period of anaesthesia.
But, while her actions were found to be below expected standards, the panel was “not satisfied” that they amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
Six specific allegations against Mrs Power were found to be proved at an initial hearing last November. But more than 30 others were deemed not proved, while 13 more were withdrawn by the college.
The inquiry related to Mrs Power’s treatment of two dogs at her King’s Lynn practice in 2018.
Published reports of the case show both dogs were subsequently transferred to the Dick White Referrals centre in Cambridgeshire, where one of them, a Tibetan terrier named Harvey, underwent further treatment including a permanent tracheostomy after Mrs Power had performed an operation for laryngeal paralysis in March 2018.
The other, a boxer named Boss, was euthanised nine days after undergoing endoscopic and surgical procedures to remove a foreign body from the oesophagus in October of that year.
The panel was told that x-rays taken several hours after the operation showed a pneumothorax the vet who took over from Mrs Power had been unable to resolve.
At a reconvened hearing, which took place from 20 March, lawyers for the college argued the proven allegations were sufficient for a finding of disgraceful conduct, as they breached Code of Conduct clauses relating to responsible referral and appropriate and adequate treatment.
They also claimed the matters were aggravated by the harm caused and Mrs Power’s acceptance of referral cases.
But Mrs Power’s representative said she had reasonably believed she was capable of carrying out the surgery on Harvey at the time and her lack of competence had only become apparent afterwards. He insisted it was not a case of deliberate or reckless conduct, but one of a vet who had “fallen short in discrete areas of her clinical practice”.
He also highlighted that “very serious deficiencies” in Mrs Power’s probity, professional standards and regard for both animals and owners had been claimed, but not proven.
The report said the committee found the code had been breached in relation to the non-provision of a referral report or clinical records to the practice that Boss was originally taken to.
But it also concluded that a reasonable member of the public, knowing all of the facts about the case, “would not expect perfection, but understand that any professional practitioner may make mistakes in the course of their practice”.
