Following a postponement of two years, a Hertfordshire veterinary surgeon has been reprimanded by the disciplinary committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) for the inadequate care of a dog in 2015.
Amir Kashiv MRCVS first appeared before the committee in December 2016 in relation to four charges against him regarding his inadequate treatment of a Scottish Terrier, called Tanzy, in March 2015 which was ultimately euthanised due to renal failure.
The first charge related to Kashiv’s original consultation with the owner on 5 March 2015 and his failure to investigate for renal disease along with his failure to discuss the operation and what they should expect post-operatively with the client.
The second charge related to the fact that, having admitted the dog as an in-patient at the practice between 20 and 23 March 2015, he failed to conduct further investigations regarding her poor condition; provide any or any adequate pain relief, or fail to record the same; failed to discuss with the owner the dog’s poor prognosis; and failed to discuss with the owner the option of euthanasia.
The third charge related to the fact that, on 23 March 2015, Kashiv discharged the animal back into her owner’s care when she was not in a fit state for discharge. The fourth and final charge related to the fact that Kashiv failed to keep sufficient clear, detailed and accurate clinical records for his treatment of the dog.
At his original hearing in December 2016, the committee found the four charges proven and also found that charges 1 to 3 amounted to serious professional misconduct.
However, the committee decided to postpone the judgement for two years, whilst recommending he agree to undertake a structured programme to improve his clinical practice, including putting together a personal development plan, having a mentor, accepting regular practice visits and undertaking additional continuing professional development (CPD).
The resumed hearing took place on Tuesday 18 December 2018, during which the committee heard evidence from the veterinary surgeon appointed to review Kashiv’s practice and report back to the disciplinary committee over the two year period. The surgeon said she had no concerns about his abilities regarding patient safety and said in her view, he met the standards of a “reasonably competent” veterinary surgeon.
She cited the fact he had gained in confidence when communicating with clients, had undertaken a considerable amount of CPD focused on the areas of concern identified in the case, that she had observed more detailed record keeping from him and that a veterinary nurse had been appointed to assist in running Kashiv’s practice.
The evidence also found his knowledge was in line with that expected of a “reasonably competent” veterinary surgeon and she observed a good quality of care for pets and their owners from him.
Kashiv also gave evidence, which the committee said demonstrated “considerable insight” into his previous conduct and a good attitude towards self-reflective practice. The committee also felt the testimonials provided showed him to be a “kind and caring” veterinary surgeon.
In conclusion, Stuart Drummond, chairing the committee, said: “The committee considers that, having successfully completed the undertakings, Mr Kashiv is now a safe practitioner. The last two years has allowed Mr Kashiv to develop his skills particularly in the area of communication.
“However, the committee has not lost sight of the fact that this was a serious case and that there was substantial harm caused to Tanzy. The committee considers that in the intervening two years Mr Kashiv has gained considerable insight, developed better communication skills and remains open to improving his practice.
“It therefore imposes a reprimand on Mr Kashiv. The committee considers that a reprimand is the appropriate and proportionate sanction to uphold proper professional standards and to maintain public confidence in the veterinary profession.”