Vet reprimanded and warned over false avian flu inspection records

A vet has been reprimanded and warned as to her future conduct after she admitted submitting inaccurate avian influenza (AI) surveillance documents.

An RCVS disciplinary panel was told Amelia Briggs’ actions came to light after inconsistencies between the papers and bird keepers’ testimonies were revealed in a subsequent audit.

But it also accepted there may have been “shortcomings” in the wider surveillance programme, after concerns were raised about the guidance given to vets before inspection visits.

The case, which was the subject of a seven-day hearing completed in early December, was based around forms submitted in relation to three surveillance visits in late 2021, during a major outbreak of AI in North Yorkshire.

Attended for APHA

Dr Briggs, who was in practice in Ripon at the time and had been asked to visit the unnamed premises on behalf of the APHA, admitted failing to inspect birds at each of the locations in question.

She also admitted certifying that she had inspected them when she had not, had seen no clinical signs of disease and believed there had been no disease present in the preceding 56 days.

But while she conceded that her actions risked undermining animal welfare and public health, she denied that her conduct was dishonest.

A newly published report of the hearing said concerns were initially raised during an APHA audit in January 2022, when two owners said their birds were not inspected and a third claimed to be unaware of any visit taking place.

Submission in error

Dr Briggs admitted not visiting one of the sites, claiming that she had submitted a pre-populated form in error, and claimed owners at the other locations had been reluctant to allow her to inspect the birds because of COVID-19 concerns, and the forms were completed on the basis of information they provided.

Two veterinary witnesses also raised concerns about limited training for surveillance visits and the “potential ambiguity” that was felt to arise from the term inspection.

But a senior APHA inspector said an inspection was “essential” to a surveillance visit, while Dr Briggs herself had acknowledged that she had understood the term to refer to a visual inspection.

The committee also heard Dr Briggs, who qualified in 2018, had completed five other surveillance visits without any issues being raised.

‘Short-lived episode’

Although the committee report described false certification as “never acceptable”, it also described the incidents as “a highly unusual, and short-lived, episode”, in Dr Briggs’ career.

It said she had shown genuine contrition for her actions and described the circumstances of working in an unfamiliar practice area as a mitigating factor.

The report added: “The committee had heard a considerable amount of evidence from various witnesses that the surveillance system created to monitor the presence of AI was one which placed considerable pressure on OVs and, perhaps inevitably, had some shortcomings.”

The committee also heard that Dr Briggs had been suspended from carrying out APHA work for 12 months as a result of the incidents.