Great Yarmouth vet to be struck off as RCVS rules on 'alcohol issues' and failings

The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) has directed the college to remove a Great Yarmouth-based veterinary surgeon from the register.

RCVS said it follows a number of “alcohol-related issues” and “clinical failings”.

The hearing into Judith Lesley Kay took place between Monday, June 18 and Thursday, June 21.

The hearing proceeded in Kay’s absence as she failed to attend the hearing in person.

A number of charges were set out relating to her practising while under the influence of alcohol, breaching undertakings to the college to abstain completely from alcohol.

it was also alleged Kay had made serious clinical failings in relation to the treatment of two dogs, Izzy and Alfie, and made disparaging remarks to a client about other veterinary surgeons.

‘Found in a car with a can of alcohol at her feet’

In relation to the first charge, on September 14, 2016, while a locum veterinary surgeon at Haven Veterinary Surgeons Group, Great Yarmouth, the committee heard from Kelly Lawson, a veterinary nurse at the practice that Kay.

Lawson told how on different occasions Miss Kay had appeared to need more assistance than expected, was overly friendly in speaking to clients, was unable to prepare a syringe correctly, and finally, on September 14, 2016, was found asleep in the car with an open can of alcohol by her feet.

The committee also heard from a number of other witnesses from the Haven Veterinary Surgeons Group, who also provided evidence of Kay’s behaviour on the day in question.

Following deliberations, the Committee found the first charge to be proved.

The second charge related to the breaching of undertakings which Kay had given to the college to the effect that she would abstain completely from alcohol.

When samples were taken on August 3, 2017, however, it was found that she had been consuming alcohol in the recent past. The committee was therefore satisfied that the second charge was proved.

Failings in the treatment of two dogs

The committee then turned to the third charge, namely that on March 17, 2017, Kay had displayed a number of clinical failings when performing surgery on a cocker spaniel, Izzy, belonging to Mrs. Debbie Coe.

The committee found the majority of the charges proved, amongst others that she failed to obtain informed consent for surgery, performed surgery in her own home when it was not registered as a veterinary practice and it was not possible to ensure sterility, and that she failed to provide suitable postoperative analgesia to Izzy.

The college then turned to the fourth charge, which concerned her treatment of Mrs. Coe’s other dog, Alife, a Miniature Schnauzer.

The charge was that on March 17, 2017, Kay euthanased Alfie in an inappropriate manner, and used a controlled drug without having a registered veterinary premise from which to dispense it.

After hearing from an expert witness the committee found the charges proved.

Inappropriate messages and remarks

Finally, the committee heard evidence relating to the fifth charge, namely that in or around July 2016, Kay made disparaging remarks to Mrs. Coe about other veterinary surgeons who had treated Alfie.

It also heard that between March 17 and March 31, 2017 she had sent inappropriate texts and voicemail messages to Mrs. Coe about the treatment of her dogs and payments owed in relation to this.

The committee thought there was not enough evidence in relation to the voicemails, but found the remainder of the charge was considered proved.

Taking all into account, the committee found that Kay’s conduct had fallen far short of the standard expected of a member of the veterinary profession and concluded that her conduct clearly amounts to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

Alistair Barr, chairing the committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The committee considered that the only appropriate sanction is that of removal from the register.

“Such a sanction is required to protect animals and to send a clear message to the respondent, and to all veterinary surgeons, of the unacceptability of the conduct identified in this case.