Boehringer has upgraded its website for the profession - www.boehringer-academy.co.uk - with artificial intelligence (AI) so as to serve relevant content based on the reader's viewing habits.

The upgraded site uses 'machine learning', a type of artificial intelligence based on pattern recognition, to offer personalised content. The technology is now commonly used in consumer sites, such as Netflix and Amazon, but until now has not been used in the veterinary world. Content is further personalised for those vets and nurses that complete their profile on the site.

The upgrade was commissioned after Boehringer carried out a user experience survey of its old website, which revealed that whilst vets appreciated the CPD and educational materials, many were trawling through content that was not of interest to them or struggling to find what they wanted.

Jemima Mead, brand manager at Boehringer, said: "We aimed to create an engaging portal – a one-stop shop for vets who want to access high quality CPD and/or relevant information about any of our products. Vets are busy people so need to find relevant information quickly – giving them more time to focus on their clinical responsibilities. Our new slick site, tailored to their individual professional preferences, provides a valuable service that simply has not existed before."

Simon Wallace, a former Education Officer at the RCVS, and Stephen May, Junior Vice-President and chair of the CPD Working Group, have published a literature review in the Veterinary Record which underpins the recent proposed changes to how the College measures continuing professional development.

The article, which is available open-access, comprises a literature search of both medical and veterinary medical journals for evidence of the effectiveness of input-based and outcomes-based CPD.

Its conclusion is that outcomes-based CPD, which concentrates less on hours logged and more on interactive and reflective learning, is the most effective at improving practice and patient health outcomes.

The paper was originally presented to the RCVS CPD Policy Working Group on 4 December 2015 to inform its discussions. A six-week consultation with the profession was held over the summer asking for their views on the resulting proposals for an outcomes-based approach to CPD.

The proposed model for CPD has four key components: planning, doing, recording and reflecting. While an overall majority of the 3,357 people who responded to the College’s consultation agreed with the proposed changes, certain elements received less support than others. The lowest amount of support was received for the ‘reflection’ component with 35% of respondents disagreeing with it.

With this in mind the RCVS Education Committee and VN Council decided that a pilot of a new outcomes-based approach should be held during 2017 with a group of volunteers, and made this recommendation to RCVS Council. RCVS Council approved this pilot at its meeting on 10 November.

The pilot is expected to be launched in February next year and the College is now looking for volunteers who both support the proposals and those who have a ‘healthy scepticism’ about them. Volunteers will receive help and support throughout the trial and will also be invited to attend an introductory CPD meeting at the College’s offices on 28 February.

If you are interested in volunteering, contact Jenny Soreskog-Turp, RCVS CPD Officer, on cpd@rcvs.org.uk.

To access the article for free, visit the Veterinary Record: http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/179/20/515.full?keytype=ref&ijkey=bwDIVYMY8Vwd0su.

Further information, including the CPD Policy Working Party’s response to the consultation, is available at www.rcvs.org.uk/CPDpilot. 

Vet Futures has published a guest blog by Laura Kidd MRCVS which asks how the profession can increase the number of veterinary nurses entering and staying within the profession?

In her blog, Laura, a VN lecturer and clinical skills tutor for veterinary students, argues that the year-on-year increases in the number of veterinary nurses seems to be insufficient to meet demand. Furthermore, there is a trend towards people leaving the profession relatively early, with the average age being just over 30.

She writes: “Identifying the reasons for VNs leaving the profession at a young age and addressing these, is one potential way of increasing VN numbers in the future.”

Laura argues that poor pay, stress, not feeling rewarded or valued and perceived lack of career progression all contribute to people leaving the profession, although she welcomes initiatives from the British Veterinary Nursing Association (BVNA), BVA, RCVS and others to increase the status of the profession, create more diverse career opportunities and improve the profession’s mental wellbeing. 

However, she adds that: “perhaps we may, reluctantly, have to accept that, for the time-being, veterinary nursing is a young profession with a high turnover.”

With this in mind she suggests that training more veterinary nurses will be the key to increasing the number of qualified members of the profession in the immediate future. In order to do this she believes that more practices need to be supported to become RCVS-approved Training Practices offering clinical training and work experience for student veterinary nurses and that an alternative training pathway for veterinary nurses may need to be looked at.

She adds: “The entry requirements for the VN Diploma are relatively low, yet the qualification is academically demanding: the volume and depth of knowledge is considerable for the level and qualification and the requirement to demonstrate critical reflection through academic writing can be challenging.

“It is regrettable that some student veterinary nurses, who appear to have the qualities to be very good VNs, are lost to the profession, unable to pass awarding body exams. Should we be developing an additional VN training pathway which allows more students to demonstrate they have the required skills to provide high quality nursing to their patients?”

In response to her proposal, this month’s poll will ask visitors “Is there a need for another VN training option?” To read the blog, leave a comment and take part in the poll please visit www.vetfutures.org.uk/discuss

Last month’s poll asked if vets always acted as animal welfare advocates. This was in response to an article by animal welfare expect Professor David Main in which he argues that the profession should do more to demonstrate its animal welfare credentials and introduce safeguards against excessive profit-seeking. Although just 22 people took part in the poll, around two-thirds (68%) of them said that vets do not always act as animal welfare advocates.

Zoetis has announced that Simparica, its once-monthly oral treatment for flea, tick and mite infestations in dogs, is now licensed for Otodectes Cynotis and Demodex Canis in addition to Sarcoptes Scabiei.

Launched in 2016, Simparica kills 95% of fleas within eight hours. It's also indicated for 99% of UK ticks and kills them within 12 hours. Zoetis says the produce provides protection for at least 35 days without losing efficacy at the end of the month.

Scott Wheway, Zoetis Product Manager, said: "As well as being fast acting and long lasting with a very good safety profile, these new claims give Simparica an expanded spectrum of cover for skin parasites. It is indicated for all four major species of ticks, including Ixodes hexagonus, the two species of fleas dogs are most frequently infested with, and three species of mites. This makes it the ideal solution for parasitic management in dermatology cases".

Scott added: "Our anti-parasitic products, including Simparica and Stronghold Plus, are only part of the Zoetis offering. With our dedicated business and veterinary consulting teams we work with practices to help grow their preventative health business by providing better patient outcomes and increased client value."

For more information, contact your Zoetis Account Manager ring 0845 300 8034 or email: customersupportUK@zoetis.com

Royal Canin has launched the Urinary range, the first new diet in its new Veterinary Health Nutrition range, at BSAVA Congress.

The urinary products, which are made to provide tailored nutritional solutions for cats and dogs with urinary issues, are available in both wet pouches and dry kibble. 

The company simultaneously introduced a new urinary diagnostic tool: the Royal Canin Hematura Detection by Blücare.

The tool is made up of granules which are put in a cat’s litter tray and which turn blue if they detect blood in the urine. Royal Canin says it is a revolutionary diagnostic aid that will be able to prevent feline lower urinary tract disease developing any further.

John O’Connor, Corporate Affairs Director at Royal Canin, said: "We are constantly looking to evolve our offer and provide the very best in nutrition. We have simplified our ranges making it easier to navigate and choose the right product for each cat and dog, created a new premium pack design and developed our best veterinary nutritional solutions.

"It was imperative that we worked very closely with the veterinary community in making this bold transformation so we consulted with vets and vet nurses, in addition to pet owners from across the world."

The Daily Mail yesterday published a 'shocking exposé' which portrays the veterinary profession as one that 'puts pets through painful and unnecessary treatments to fleece their trusting owners'

The story is based on an interview with ex-vet Matthew Watkinson to promote his new book: 'On The Destiny Of Species'.

In the interview, Mr Watkinson claims the veterinary profession is to blame for much of the animal suffering in the UK, and that 'money - not the welfare of the animal - is often at the forefront of the vet's mind'. 

In the interview, Mr Watkinson

• accuses vets of performing expensive and totally unnecessary procedures
• describes how vets Google a pet owner's home to see how much treatment they might be able to afford.
• accuses vets of being complicit in the breeding of dogs with congenital problems, such as bulldogs and daschunds

The RCVS issued a swift response, which you can read here.

Later in the day, Mr Watkinson appeared on Radio 5 Live opposite ex BVA President, Nicky Paull. The interview can be heard for the next 6 days on BBC iplayer here.

It is not yet clear the degree to which the Daily Mail might have sensationalised Mr Watkinson's interview.  In his blog, he claims it did, but defiantly defends his main argument that the profession is fighting natural selection, and thereby harming animal welfare.

VetSurgeon.org member Julian Earl MRCVS has published 'Cows in Trees', a warm and witty memoir of his life as a veterinary surgeon.

Having been told at school that he'd never cut it as a veterinary surgeon, Julian qualified from Liverpool in 1981. He became a partner at Banovallum Vets in Horncastle in 1989 and later the sole owner. Along the way, he also gained AP status in Sheep and Animal Welfare and served as President of the Sheep Veterinary Society and the Lincolnshire Veterinary Association. Oh, and in 1991, he was part of a team that set a world record relay time cycling from Land's End to John O'Groats, raising £8,500 in the process.

Then, in 2012, everything changed. Julian had a cycling accident during a road race in Lincolnshire. He fractured his skull and suffered multiple brain haemorrhages, broken ribs, a fractured shoulder and a punctured lung. Doctors told his wife he'd be unlikely to survive.

But survive he did, and with his injuries precluding a return to practice, he's reinvented himself as an author and approved para-cyclist. 

His book is a collection of light-hearted anecdotes and memories from his life in practice, with practical advice about what to try and avoid when working as a veterinary surgeon. 

And yes, he was once called out to attend a cow stuck in a tree!

You can buy the book on Amazon in hardcover for £12.95, here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Julian-Earl/e/B01EVCT67K/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1461874827&sr=1-1

So, after months of speculation, the Panorama documentary: It shouldn't happen at a vets' finally aired last night. Early reaction from most of the profession seems to be one of mild relief that by focussing so heavily on Medivet, the documentary has left everyone else more or less unscathed.

There's also a great deal of sympathy for those hard-working and professional vets and nurses who work at Medivet. They're the biggest losers in all of this, tarred by the indefensible behaviour of a very small number of colleagues, and by the very nature of most of the filming in the documentary (give me a fish-eye lapel camera, and I could make even Mother Theresa look like a crack dealer).

But can everyone else really sit back, think 'not my problem', 'sensationalist rubbish', or 'it'll blow over in a week' and move on?

If you consider only the more headline-grabbing elements of the documentary, any of those would be a reasonable position to take. But look beyond 'Vet Makes Fraudulent Insurance Claim', and it seems the producers might accidentally have hit upon some big challenges facing the profession. Might now be a good moment to reflect on and debate some of these issues? 

The first story covered by the documentary was that of an owner who'd found their cat 'weeing blood', taken it to Medivet and been quoted £815.05 for a bank of tests. They'd left in disgust, and visited another practice. This one gave a diagnosis without tests, the bill for which came to 75 quid, including £28 worth of food.

Veterinary costs were a recurring theme throughout the documentary. At the start, Jeremy Vine pointed out the £20,000 lifetime cost of owning a dog, and the £15,000 cost of owning a cat. He said vet bills have trebled in a decade. Mid-way through the programme, the voice-over read: "Veterinary medicine is increasingly high tech, and increasingly expensive. The new generation of vets is taught that working up to an accurate diagnosis may involve extensive tests. More veterinary work means more costs. And later in the documentary, Alex Lee, the reporter, was said to have found evidence of two clients that had spent over £100,000 on their pets over a ten year period.

At the end of it all, the real issue is not about the disparity between one vet's bill and another's, but whether the profession is becoming over-qualified or over-equipped for the job, and consequently at risk of pricing itself out of the market. 

Commenting on state-of-the-art care, Professor Innes from the University of Liverpool said in the programme: "We would never push clients into procedures that are unnecessary, but if people want to access the best healthcare for their pet, that's up to them."

Surely every pet owner wants to access the best healthcare for their pet? Of course, Professor Innes is right, there is a market for complex procedures and diagnostic tests. But there's a very fine line between 'pushing' a client into a procedure, and recommending a procedure (to someone who feels emotionally duty-bound to do the best for their cherished pet).

For me, it was ironically one of the Medivet staff who seemed to hit the nail on the head when she said: "The 'Medivet Way' is to work it up to find out why straight away, so... And people can't afford it now really, you know."

Is the word 'Medivet' in her quote interchangeable with a growing list of practices? Does something need to give? Is it time to call a halt to the development of increasingly complex procedures and diagnostic tests developed to save the life of what is, after all, just a cat or a dog?

Or is it a question of veterinary surgeons ceasing to recommend any particular treatment above a certain cost, and instead simply laying out the options available to the client: "Mrs Jones, you've got three options here. Option one is my best guess, and I might be wrong. Option two is my best guess plus these tests, which will help confirm whether I am right and will cost x. Option three is referral to the world's leading expert, who is based in Dallas, but that'll give time for the MRI on board the specially chartered 747". I'm being flippant, but my point is a serious one: as more expensive treatment and diagnostic options become available, so it becomes ever riskier recommending them, rather than simply informing the owner of their choices.

The next story was an important one too. It was the one where a student nurse and the unqualified reporter were tasked with catheterising a dog unsupervised. They struggled. As did the dog. Thanks to the hidden camera, and the reporter interjecting: 'What a nightmare', it made for dramatic TV. But as many have commented in the VetSurgeon forums, a difficult to catheterise dog is not exactly out of the ordinary. And who thinks this was the first time the procedure has been done by lay staff?

More interesting was the polar opposite interpretations of the law on this issue expressed by Medivet on the one hand, and Professor Sandy Trees for the RCVS on the other. In response to the question of whether a trainee should be placing a catheter, Jeremy Vine read from a statement in which Medivet insisted that everything it allows its trainees to do is legal, and that there was no definitive list of procedures that could be carried out by trainees. Two minutes later, and we had Professor Trees appearing to contradict Medivet's statement.

Then we see the reporter and a student nurse taking a blood sample from a cat, before the arrival of a vet. Medivet says: "This procedure was completely legal, normal and was carried out at the direction of a vet. This means that the vet does not have to be present at the time. [The tasks] were not illegal. The trainee veterinary nurses were properly trained and experienced. RCVS inspectors have never raised this as an issue, and it is common practice." But when Jeremy Vine then asked Professor Trees: "Would it be OK for a student veterinary nurse to take a blood sample before a vet arrived into the practice", the answer is no. When pressed: "So supervision means that the vet has to be in the building", Professor Trees hesitates before delivering his more ambiguous reply: 'I would say so, yes'.

How on earth did that happen? How did one of the biggest veterinary groups come to be at loggerheads with the regulator on TV? Remember that Medivet would have had some time to prepare its response, and presumably had it checked by a team of lawyers first. Professor Trees may or may not have had the luxury of as much warning. Still, if el Presidente himself cannot give more than a personal opinion in answer to such an important question, something is amiss. After all, people's careers are at stake here.

The issue here is whether regulation needs to become more prescriptive. For example, is it fair that the responsibility for defining precisely what is 'minor surgery (not involving entry into a body cavity)', and therefore able to be performed by a qualified veterinary nurse, currently rests with the individual veterinary surgeon. And if it comes to it, the only way the veterinary surgeon is going to know whether he or she made the right call is if and when it comes to be tested in court.

Talk about closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Surely it is time now, particularly in the (like it or not) increasingly corporate and less personally accountable world we live in, for the profession and everyone in it to have clearer leadership in terms of what is and what is not acceptable.

I won't dwell on any of the other stories covered by the documentary, because I don't think any of them are individually revealing of very much.

A student nurse struck a dog. 'Walloped' according to the reporter; 'smacked' according to an  onlooker. There's a difference. Either way, a difficult one to defend.

Then a member of staff (and I couldn't work out whether it was the vet or the nursing assistant) started playing with an anaesthetised kitten as if it were a puppet. That was damning for the lack of humanity it showed.

Next we saw a new grad trying to intubate a cat. For some reason, it didn't go as smoothly as it should. Some speculation in the VetSurgeon forums as to whether she applied the local anaesthetic correctly or not, but the cat was fine. Mistakes happen.

Next we saw a dog that had a condition which made it susceptible to cuts. A 'new girl' says she thinks she must have accidentally cut its pad as she closed the kennel door. Not the end of the world, except we then see the staff plotting to tell the owner that it happened before the dog arrived at the practice, and that they would need £13 worth of Fuciderm. Again, it isn't what you would call the crime of the century. But it was nevertheless a damning piece of film for the lack of honesty shown by the staff.

Then we had the case of the dodgy insurance claims, where the practice allegedly split what should have been one claim into three 'by accident', so that they could effectively increase the total amount the owner would be able to claim. Difficult to get really het up about this one. I mean, I know it's wrong. But it wasn't exactly in the same league as Lord Brocket taking the oxyacetylene torch to his car collection. And as far as I could see, the unwitting beneficiaries of this one were the dog and its  owner.  No, the real problem was that in the same breath as Medivet proclaimed its innocence, its employee was there in technicolor explaining exactly how and why the deed was done.

Guy Carter, one of the Medivet partners was next on the rack. The Panorama reporter alleged that he instructed staff to bill a client for a monitor that wasn't used. The company says it was. So it's their word against hers. Unfortunately, the company's word wasn't looking that good by this stage in the proceedings.

As I said earlier, these things don't individually tell anyone much. But collectively, I wonder whether they don't highlight another important issue, which is the apparent 'disconnect' (hate using the word like that, just can't think of a better alternative at this time of night) between what the public wants (i.e. a close, trusting relationship with an accountable James Herriot-type-figure, personified in the film by Bob Stevenson), and what the corporates can realistically deliver.

I was chatting about this with a locum vet this afternoon. His experience is that in small practices where the owner is present, there is always a better atmosphere. Staff take more pride in their work, and deliver a higher standard of care than in the corporates.

Isn't that really what the documentary showed? Yes, they were especially excruciating examples of how people behave when they don't have a real sense of ownership in a business. But isn't a lower, less personal standard of care an inevitable consequence of corporatisation?

Incidentally, my apologies for labelling Medivet a corporate rather than a partnership, but like it or not, that's the public perception of a chain.

Finally, the star of the show made his grand entrance. Kfir Segev, charged with recommending £2200 worth of MRI scan for a dog that was obviously dying. Now that is despicable. He's found guilty of unprofessional conduct, and struck off. I suppose 'vet commits fraud, is found out and punished' is not the stuff of which great documentaries are made, so Panorama tried to make something of the fact that he continued to work for 28 days whilst deciding whether to exercise his right to appeal. And? Perhaps sensing they still had a bit of a non-story on their hands, they tried to make an issue out of the fact that he'd continued to work as a practice manager after being struck off. It was all a bit lame, really.

Still, not as lame as the finale, which was the 'revelation' that Medivet collected blood from rescue dogs, in return for donations of food and supplies. Panorama claimed the blood was sold at a profit. Medivet claimed it is subsidised. Does anyone actually care either way?

Since the documentary was broadcast last night, Medivet has issued a further statement in which it does the honourable thing, and takes responsibility for everything it needed to. Medivet will recover from this. If the professionalism of the response is anything to go by, it will emerge stronger.

Still, the big questions remain. How to address the spiralling costs that accompany the latest advances. Can the profession afford, any longer, to leave so much to the discretion of the individual, or is it time to demand a more prescriptive regulatory environment? And finally, how can the corporates deliver the kind of service that the public seems to want? Doubtless there will be some who'd like them to fail in this regard. But as we've just seen, it does nobody any favours if they are allowed to do so in a way that threatens to bring the whole profession into disrepute.

Invicta Animal Health has launched an enhanced version of the ChroMyco Duo dermatophyte test.

The tests use a new round plate with an improved lid design. In addition, the plates are wider and deeper providing 25% more culture medium.

According to the company, the dual plate test with Dermatophyte Test Media (DTM) on one side and an Enhanced Sporulation Agar (ESA) on the other greatly reduces the risk of false positive results. 

The test is performed by veterinary staff taking a pluck of fur or skin scrape from the lesion and inoculating both sides. After three to six days of room temperature incubation, if dermatophytes are present, the DTM will turn red and the ESA will turn blue-green.

Rob Watkins, Managing Director of Invicta, said: "We always listen and respond to customer feedback. The new design plates provide reduced condensation levels and by being easier to inoculate will enhance the usability and hence reliability of the test."

The price remains unchanged at £32.00 for 5 tests, from veterinary wholesalers.

For more information call 01403 791313 or email mail@invictavet.com.

Bayer has introduced a new microchip scanner which is capable of reading all chips, including encrypted ones.

The company says the new Tracer Advance Isomax V scanner offers exceptional reading distances of more than twice those of other scanners on the market, making it a very versatile tool ideally suited for use in companion animal practices or for detecting microchips in larger animals such as horses.

The technology that gives this scanner its backward compatibility with non ISO standard chips means practices can now save money by only having to buy one scanner, whereas previously two were required to be able to read all types of chip.

Other features of the device include digital signal processing (DSP), which protects against radio interference from TVs and PCs, and connectivity via USB, RS232 or optional Bluetooth interface.

The Tracer Advance Isomax V scanner is available from Bayer and is priced at £499.95. It comes with a 30-month warranty. Contact your Bayer territory representative for further details.

Idexx Laboratories has launched a new renal function test, Idexx SDMA, which the company says can detect chronic kidney disease (CKD) in dogs or cats months or even years earlier than traditional methods.

The test is based on a new renal biomarker - symmetric dimethylarginine (SDMA) - and is the result of collaboration with a number of global experts.

Simon Wootton, UK CAG Marketing Manager at Idexx said: "The high sensitivity of this marker for detecting CKD will allow vets to diagnose the disease a lot sooner than has been previously possible. Identifying the disease earlier will give vets more time to intervene and prescribe an appropriate course of action."

The company says that the Idexx SDMA test can identify renal disease in dogs up to nine months earlier than previous methods, while in cats the detection time can be up to 17 months earlier.

Dr Martha Cannon, BA VetMB DSAM(fel) RCVS Recognised Specialist in Feline Medicine of the Oxford Cat Clinic, said: "The launch of SDMA testing is very exciting. It offers the prospect of identifying chronic kidney disease at an earlier stage, which should mean we can treat it more effectively and allow us to maintain cats in the asymptomatic phase. This can improve longevity, but more importantly could help maintain a better quality of life for longer.

"SDMA is also unaffected by muscle loss, which will allow us to assess the true extent of CKD in our elderly and underweight cats. This will lead to improved treatment choices, better quality of life and more peace of mind for owners."

The value of the new test has been validated by the adoption of SDMA into the International Renal Interest Society (IRIS) guidelines as a biomarker for the early detection of CKD.

Jonathan W. Ayers, President and Chief Executive Officer of Idexx Laboratories, said: "Idexx SDMA is a result of our commitment to lead the industry in sustained research investments that serve to advance veterinary medicine. It represents a significant achievement in veterinary diagnostics. Hospitals in the USA already using Idexx SDMA have told us that it has transformed the way renal disease is diagnosed and treated."

Idexx SDMA is available to UK and Ireland reference laboratory customers now. Further information is available at www.idexxsdma.com.

Video shows Sylvia Conway MRCVS, UK Medical Affairs Consultant at Idexx, talking about the new test (can also be viewed here).

Zoetis has announced that it will continue to supply an alternative equine rotavirus vaccine under a Wholesale Dealer Import Certificate (WDIC) until normal supply of its licensed product, Equip Rotavirus, can be restored.