board update - Veterinary Practitioners Registration Board of Victoria

Vol. 30, no. 2 Winter 2006
BOARD UPDATE
PRESIDENT: Dr. L R COGHLAN BVSc
REGISTRAR: Miss MB WILSON ACIS
Newsletter of the Veterinary Practitioners Registration Board of Victoria
VETERINARY
PRACTITIONERS
REGISTRATION
BOARD OF
VICTORIA
ABN 88 393 171 326
Level 11, 470 Collins Street,
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 3000
Telephone +613 9620 7444
Facsimile +613 9620 7044
Email enquiries@vetboard.vic.gov.au
Message from the President
Leigh Coghlan
Resignation and Appointment
I am sorry to advise you that Mr John Dillon, the appointed
legal member of the Board has resigned. John was first
appointed to the Board on 18 March 1998 after the
introduction of the Veterinary Practice Act 1997. John’s
enthusiasm for, and commitment to, the work of the Board,
his desire to ensure the Board was properly appraised of its
statutory obligations, his wise counsel and friendship has been
invaluable and will be missed. On behalf of the Board and
staff I express our appreciation and wish him well.
We welcome Ms Joanna Devrome who has been appointed to
fill the casual vacancy. Ms Devrome graduated with
Degrees in Economics and Law with Honours from Monash
University. She is an experienced litigator in public liability,
professional indemnity law, is an accredited mediator and
accredited specialist in personal injury law with the Law
Institute of Victoria. Ms Devrome is a Partner with law firm
Wisewoulds.
Evaluation of Board Performance
The Board has recently conducted an Evaluation of Board
Performance as part of its governance obligations. This was
carried out as an internal self assessment questionnaire
followed by informal interviews of each Board member by
the President. This evaluation process was in keeping with the
requirements of the Department of Primary Industries
Governance Guidelines booklet for Statutory Authority
Board Members issued in October 2005. As an extension of
the Board Evaluation process, the Board determined to
conduct a pilot survey of thirty randomly selected registered
veterinary practitioners as to their view of the Board’s
performance. This is a precursor to conducting a full-scale
survey of all registered veterinary practitioners. The results
of this survey will be made available on the website –
www.vetboard.vic.gov.au
Appointment of 4 th Board
The term of the current Board will expire on 17 March 2007
and on the back page of this newsletter you will find an
advertisement seeking applications from persons interested in
putting their names forward for consideration by the
Minister. Applications close on 5 th September 2006. If you
would like to be considered for appointment but first want to
know more about the operations of the Board, please do not
hesitate to contact me or the Registrar.
Inside this issue:
Legislation
Privacy Act 1988 2
Drugs, Poisons & 2
Controlled Substances
Regulations 2006
Proposed Agricultural & 2
Veterinary Chemicals
(Control of Use)
Regulations
Registration
Policy regarding nonpractising
registration 3
International Foreign
Veterinary Exams 4
Confirmation of 4
Registration
New graduate 4
Registration
Inability to provide a letter 4
Of professional standing
Complaints
Case Study 1 5
Case Study 2 6
Complaints timeline 7
summary
Complaints 2005-2006 7
Guidelines
Guidelines 8
“Off-label” use of drugs 8
Communications
www.vetboard.vic.gov.au 9
Board publications 9
Advertisement for 10
4 th Board

PRIVACY ACT 1988 (COMMONWEALTH)
The Privacy Act 1988 (Commonwealth) is
the legislation affecting privacy matters in
private sector organisations. The following
section from Guidelines to the National Privacy
Principles issued by the Office of the Federal
Privacy Commissioner in September 2001
needs to be noted by veterinary practices:
“The new privacy provisions will apply to
businesses (including non-profit
organisations) with an annual turn-
over of more than $3 million and
health service providers.
Businesses with an annual turnover of $3
million or less are exempt from the new
laws unless one of the following statements is
true for the business:
• It is related to another business (for
example its holding company or a
subsidiary) that has an annual
turnover of more than $3 million
• It provides a health service and holds
health records
• It discloses personal information for a
benefit service or advantage
• It provides someone else with a
benefit, service or advantage to
collect personal information
• It is a contracted service provider for
a Commonwealth contract”
In the majority of cases veterinary
practices in Victoria are exempt from the
Privacy Act 1988 as they do not provide
health services as defined in the legislation
and the annual turn-over is less than $3
million, therefore practitioners cannot
refuse to provide medical records by citing
the Privacy Act 1988.
Further information regarding the Privacy
Act 1988 (Commonwealth) can be
obtained from their website
www.privacy.gov.au where they provide
guidelines, information sheets and other
relevant documentation.
DRUGS, POISONS AND CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES REGULATIONS
2006
The new Drugs, Poisons and Controlled
Substances Regulations 2006 were authorised on
25 May 2006 and revoke all previous
regulations of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled
Substances Act 1981. They can be
downloaded from the web at the following:
www.dms.dpc.vic.gov.au under Statutory
Rules as either a PDF document or Word
file, or can be purchased in hard copy from
Information Victoria, 356 Collins St
Melbourne 3000, telephone 1300 366 356,
fax (03) 9603 9920.
PROPOSED AGRICULTURAL AND VETERINARY CHEMICALS
(CONTROL OF USE) REGULATIONS 2006
The Board was requested to comment on the
proposed Agricultural and Veterinary
Chemicals (Control of Use) Regulations
2006. The Board supports the continuance
of regulations providing for the control of
use of agricultural and veterinary chemicals
and confined its comments to proposed
Regulation 10: “10 Advice notes
An advice note prepared by a veterinary practitioner
in connection with the treatment of a stock animal
with a veterinary chemical product must be supplieda)
in person to the person responsible for the
management of the animal before treatment of the
animal using the product commences or at the time of
initial treatment; or
b) by facsimile to the person responsible for the
management of the animal before treatment of the
animal using the product commences.”
As there appeared to be a contradiction in
the Regulation, in that on the one hand
the practitioner must provide the advice
note in person, and on the other may
send it by facsimile, the Board requested
deletion of the words “in person”. This
would ensure continuance of the spirit of
the Regulation – that the veterinary
practitioner has a legal responsibility to
provide a written advice note to the
person responsible for the animal, but
removes the legal requirement to be
physically present when the
documentation is handed over.
Page 2 of 10

BOARD UPDATE VOL. 30, no 2 Winter 2006
POLICY REGARDING NON-PRACTISING REGISTRATION
Section 7A of the Veterinary Practice Act
1997 provides for non-practising
registration:
“7A.Non-practising registration
(1) The Board may grant or refuse to grant
registration as a non-practising veterinary
practitioner to an applicant if the applicant –
(a) is qualified for general registration; and
(b) the applicant has satisfied the Board that
he or she does not intend to practice as a
veterinary practitioner for the period of the
registration
(2) A grant of non-practising registration
under this section is subject to any conditions,
limitations or restrictions imposed by the Board
on the registration.
(3) The Board may, of its own motion, or on
the application by a veterinary practitioner
granted registration as a non-practising
veterinary practitioner, amend, vary or revoke
any condition, limitation, or restriction
imposed under sub-section (2).”
Non-practising registration applies to
retirees, those working in a totally nonveterinary
occupation, those on maternity
leave or full-time child rearing and those
working overseas or interstate. It enables
veterinary practitioners who have, to all
intents and purposes, retired from practice
but who wish to maintain ties with the
profession, to remain on the veterinary
register.
To be eligible for non-practising registration
the veterinary practitioner:
• may not carry out veterinary
procedures in Victoria; and
• may not provide veterinary services
in Victoria; and
• may not exercise authority requiring
registration as a veterinary
practitioner in Victoria.
Therefore, holders of non-practising
registration may not consult, provide
certificates of any type, nor purchase,
possess or supply scheduled drugs under the
Drugs and Poisons legislation in Victoria.
Applicants for non-practising registration
must sign a declaration that they meet the
eligibility requirements as follows:
“I do not intend to practise as a veterinary
practitioner: that is, I will not carry out procedures,
provide services or exercise authority requiring
registration as a veterinary practitioner, during the
registration period applied for.”
Non-practising registration is granted on
an annual basis and must be re-applied for
each year.
Veterinary practitioners holding nonpractising
registration will be listed
separately on the veterinary register and
will not be included in the database posted
on the Board’s website.
Veterinary practitioners who hold
endorsement as a specialist under section 8
of the Act and who are granted nonpractising
registration may describe
themselves as ‘registered specialist nonpractising’,
and may not offer any level of
veterinary procedure or veterinary services
– general or specialist. This includes the
provision of specialist consulting services.
For those practitioners holding Nonpractising
Registration who wish to apply
for General Registration the following
applies:
a) applicants who have held nonpractising
registration for less than
three years are able to have their nonpractising
registration converted to full
registration up until the end of the
deeming period by completing a
renewal form and paying the renewal
fee minus the non-practising fee
already paid with the amount to be
paid dependant upon the date the
original payment was made
b) applicants who have held nonpractising
registration for less than
three years who wish to convert to full
general registration after the deeming
period are required to complete a
general registration form and pay the
general registration fee
c) applicants who have held nonpractising
registration for over three
years and who have not been practising
elsewhere may be assessed for
competency in practise.
The registration fee for non-practising
registration has been set at $36.00. This is
a flat rate fee and no late, restoration or
penalty fees apply.
Page 3 of 10

INTERNATIONAL FOREIGN VETERINARY EXAMINATIONS
Following recommendations from the Australasian
Veterinary Boards Council Inc (AVBC) the Board
now recognises a number of foreign examinations
for foreign veterinary graduates as equivalent to the
Australian National Veterinary Examination
(NVE) for the purposes of gaining general
registration in Victoria.
The New Zealand National Veterinary
Examination (NZNVE) is recognised as equivalent
to the NVE, therefore holders of this qualification
can gain general registration in Victoria. The
Educational Commission for Foreign Veterinary
Graduates (ECFVG) awarded in the United States
is also recognised as equivalent to the NVE, as is
the Canadian National Examination Board (NEB)
examination for foreign veterinary graduates.
Holders of these qualifications can now apply for
general registration in Victoria without further
examination. However applicants will be required
to have an interview with the Registrar before
registration is granted in order to ascertain
knowledge of Victorian legislation relevant to the
veterinary profession, and their standard of the
English language.
CONFIRMATION OF REGISTRATION
All registration, including restoration and reregistration,
applications will not be put forward to
the Board until advice has been received from the
bank that payment of the fee has been honoured.
Consequently applications will need to be received
at least a week before the sitting of the Board.
Confirmation of registration will now be a two
step process where payment requires to be
honoured before the application in put to the
Board and if the Board accepts the application the
applicant will be notified in writing that
registration is confirmed.
NEW GRADUATE REGISTRATION
New graduate registration is available to those new
graduates who have not been previously registered
elsewhere and within twelve months of graduation.
New graduates are required to complete a new
graduate registration form and provide a certified
copy of their degree with payment of the
registration fee.
After twelve months since graduation applicants
are no longer considered to be new graduates,
even though they have not been registered
elsewhere. Such applicants are required to
complete a Registration form, provide a certified
copy of their degree, a detailed CV describing
professional activities since graduation with
payment of the registration fee. The application
will be brought to the Board’s attention at the
relevant Board meeting.
INABILITY TO PROVIDE A LETTER OF PROFESSIONAL STANDING
It has come to the Board’s attention that some
applicants have been unable to provide the Board
with a letter of professional standing. In the
following cases alternative have been agreed upon:
1. Residency program: for those who have
been enrolled in a residency program
proof must be provided of being or having
been enrolled in a residency program, sent
directly to the Board from the university
where the residency program is situated
stating the full name of the applicant, the
type of program, the length of the
program, the fact that
registration/licensing was not required and
that there was no incidence of
unprofessional conduct.
2. No registering authority: for those who
have been working in a jurisdiction where
there was no registering authority a letter
must be provided from their employer/s
(voluntary or otherwise) directly to the
Board stating the full name of the
applicant, the type of work the applicant
was undertaking, the period of time
employed and the fact no registering
authority exists in the jurisdiction
therefore registration was not required.
3. As 2 above but unable to provide a letter
from the employer: the applicant must
provide a statutory declaration stating
where the work was situated, the type of
work undertaken, the length of time the
work was undertaken and why
registration was not required.
Page 4 of 10

BOARD UPDATE VOL. 30, no 2 Winter 2006
COMPLAINTS
Case Study 1
A 10 year old cat was presented to Dr Z
for dental prophylaxis. Dr Z was
informed by the owner of the cat’s
history of asthma. Dr Z performed a
clinical examination of the cat which
revealed no abnormalities. The owners
were present for the majority of the
dental prophylaxis. The cat was inducted
with Aquafol®, intubated and maintained
on isoflurane gaseous anaesthesia
throughout the procedure. After the
procedure, whilst still intubated, the cat
ceased breathing. Efforts were made to
resuscitate; however the cat was unable to
be revived.
The matter was referred to an Informal
Hearing into the professional conduct of
Dr Z. It was alleged that Dr Z engaged
in unprofessional conduct in that Dr Z
did not obtain written consent for a
procedure as required by Guideline 8.4.
It was further alleged that Dr Z engaged
in unprofessional conduct in that Dr Z
did not offer a post-mortem as required
by Guideline 16.4.1.
In relation to the first allegation regarding
consent, the Board found that Dr Z had
not engaged in unprofessional conduct.
The Board deemed that the veterinary
treatment provided by Dr Z was
appropriate and of a satisfactory standard.
The Board noted that clinical examination
of the cat revealed no abnormalities on
the day and the anaesthetic regime used
was an appropriate choice for a cat of
such age and clinical history. The Board
could not determine the cause of death as
no post mortem was performed. The
Board noted that unexpected and
unexplained deaths relating to an
anaesthetic or surgical procedure do
occasionally occur in veterinary practice.
In this case, the death was an unfortunate
but unforeseeable event.
Whilst Dr Z admitted written consent
was not obtained for the procedure, the
Board considered that the presence of
the owners as witnesses to the
procedure, constituted their consent.
The owners informed the Board that at
the time of the procedure they were
aware of the possible risks and
complications of anaesthesia. Therefore
the Board considered that the consent
was informed.
The Board noted that Dr Z has since
implemented the mandatory use of
written consent forms to record
informed consent.
In relation to the second allegation
regarding post
mortem, the Board found Dr Z had
engaged in unprofessional conduct and
was counselled as follows:
• In the event of the
unexplained/unexpected
death of an animal whilst
under the care of a veterinary
practitioner, the practitioner
should offer the owner the
option of a post mortem,
which may provide
information regarding the
cause of death, as required by
and in compliance with
Guideline 16.4.
The Board found that a post mortem
was not offered in an attempt to
establish cause of death. The Board
acknowledged the traumatic nature of
the event and understood Dr Z’s
reticence to add to the owner’s distress.
However, the Board deemed that in
order to comply with Guideline 16.4, a
post mortem should have been offered.
Page 5 of 10

Case Study 2
A 3 year old dog was presented to Dr K for
pregnancy diagnosis. Dr K was unable to confirm
pregnancy through physical examination and
referred the dog for abdominal ultrasound. An
ultrasound examination revealed the presence of at
least six pups. An appointment was subsequently
made for the dog to undergo an elective caesarean
section on a date close to that of the calculated
whelping date.
Dr K later examined the dog and based on the
clinical findings; believed the dog was approaching
natural parturition. An elective caesarean section
was undertaken by Dr K. Six puppies were
delivered alive; however no viable puppies survived
despite efforts to resuscitate. One of the puppies
was born with no hind limbs. Another had an
umbilical hernia of which the origin is unclear.
These two puppies were subsequently euthanised.
No oxytocin was administered to the dog in the post
surgical period as none was available in the clinic.
Dr K advised the owner to be cautious breeding
with the dog again due to the incidence of genetic
abnormality. Six days post surgery, the dog naturally
delivered a further two puppies at home. One was
found dead in the garden and one has survived.
During the natural delivery the dog herniated the
surgical wound.
The matter was referred to an Informal Hearing into
the professional conduct of Dr K. It was alleged
that Dr K engaged in unprofessional conduct in that
Dr K failed to complete a caesarian section with due
care, resulting in the retention of two puppies. It
was further alleged that Dr K engaged in
unprofessional conduct in that Dr K failed to use an
appropriate anaesthetic regime, as required by
Guideline 12.2 and this may have contributed to
foetal depression and the subsequent death of the
neonates. The final allegation was that Dr K
engaged in unprofessional conduct in that Dr K may
have misdiagnosed the neonatal mortalities as being
due to genetic abnormality.
In relation to the first allegation Dr K was found to
have engaged in unprofessional conduct, and was
cautioned. A caution is a formal notification, in the
context of an advisory warning, to a registered
veterinary practitioner. It warns the registered
veterinary practitioner that a change in his or her
manner of practice is required in order to conform
to the minimum standards of the profession as
dictated by the requirements of the Veterinary
Practice legislation, or by ancillary legislation (e.g.
Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances
legislation), or by the written Guidelines of the Board,
or by the commonly understood community standards
and those of the veterinary practitioner's peers. It
becomes a matter of permanent record on the
veterinary practitioner's file and may be referred to in
any future Hearing or action taken by the Board.
The Board determined that Dr K be cautioned to
change such manner of practice in order to conform
to the minimum standards of the profession as
dictated by the requirements of the Veterinary Practice
Act 1997, and was further instructed to undertake
further private study on the use of oxytocin.
The Board accepted that the decision to proceed with
the caesarean section was made in good judgement
based on clinical findings indicating that parturition
was imminent. However both Dr K and the Board
agreed that the surgery was not carried out with due
care, resulting in the retention of two puppies. The
Board found that Dr K failed to adequately inspect
the uterus before completing the surgery and thus
overlooked the remaining two puppies. The Board
considered checking the uterus before closing the
surgical incision to be a basic principle of caesarean
surgery and that failure to do so was unacceptable
veterinary practice. As such the Board determined that
Dr K did not exercise reasonable skill and care as is
expected of a registered veterinary practitioner.
The Board also believed that the failure to administer
oxytocin may have contributed to the unfortunate
outcome. The Board considered that had oxytocin
been administered it may have aided uterine
contractions and resulted in the delivery of the further
two puppies in the period before the dog was
discharged home. The Board understood that no
oxytocin was available in the clinic but believed that
an alternative source should have been sought. The
Board advised that in most cases, even those without
complications, the use of oxytocin may be beneficial
after whelping.
The Board questioned Dr K on the choice of suture
technique. The Board advised that Dr K consider the
use of a simple interrupted suture pattern rather than a
simple continuous pattern in cases where undue stress
may be placed on the incision site.
The Board noted that as a result of this event Dr K
has made changes in surgical preparation and
technique. The Board further noted that Dr K is
undertaking further studies in surgery.
In relation to the second allegation Dr K was found
not to have engaged in unprofessional conduct.
Page 6 of 10

BOARD UPDATE VOL. 30, no 2 Winter 2006
The Board read extracts of current and reputable
references provided by Dr K, which indicated the
anaesthetic regime used fell within the range of
those recommended by such references. Whilst the
Board considered that it was possible that Dr K’s
choice of anaesthetic regime may have contributed
to foetal depression and the subsequent death of the
puppies, this could not be ascertained with the
evidence provided. The Board noted that as a result
of this event Dr K has revised particular anaesthetic
protocols.
In relation to the final allegation Dr K was found to
have engaged in unprofessional conduct and was
counselled that any diagnosis and/or advice given
must be based on sufficient and sound evidence to
support the claim being made. The Board noted
there were disparities between the owner and Dr K
as to their respective recollection of the statements
made and that there may have been certain
misunderstandings between them. However, the
Board accepted the account of the owner that Dr K
stated that there was evidence of genetic abnormality
and advised caution in breeding with the dog or the
same sire again. The Board considered Dr K’s
diagnosis of genetic abnormality to be without
sufficient evidence and therefore inappropriate. The
Board deemed that one deformed pup out of eight is
not conclusive evidence of a genetic abnormality,
particularly as this was the first litter, and it did not
adequately explain the death of all of the puppies
delivered by caesarean section. The Board found that
there was insufficient evidence for Dr K to reach such
a diagnosis and that any future advice provided to
owners be based on solid scientific evidence.
COMPLAINTS TIMELINE SUMMARY
The Complaints Committee met in May 2006 and
reviewed the Complaints timeline for the July to
December and January to June 2005 periods. The
timeline includes the average number of days taken
for a complaint to be delegated from the date it was
received, the average number of days taken to send
letters to veterinary practitioners informing them of
the complaint and requesting their response, the
number of days in which a veterinary practitioner
responded, the average number of days a
complainant takes to respond to a veterinary
practitioner’s response and the average number of
days in which a complaint is concluded.
It was noted that the average number of days in
which a complaint was delegated by the Board, after
receipt, was 15 days in the July to December period,
6 days less than in the previous six month period.
The average number of days taken to present cases to
the Preliminary Investigation Panel between July and
December was 52 days, 41 days less than in the
previous period. The average number of days in which
the Preliminary Investigation Panel made a
recommendation to the Board was 26 days, 11 days
less than in the previous period. Between receipt of a
complaint and complaint closure the average
timeframe was 172 days during the July to December
period, compared to 215 days in the January to June
2005 period. This figure represents a significant 20
per cent reduction in the timeframe of complaints
processing.
There are currently 27 complaints being investigated,
including those being prepared for Formal and
Informal Hearings.
COMPLAINTS 2005-2006
During June 2005-June 2006 a total of 32% (2005:
39%) of complaints enquiries dealt with were
formalised in writing. This represents a ratio of
one complaint per 48.91 registered veterinary
practitioners (2005: 30.53). It is interesting to show
how the level of complaints relates to the number of
veterinary consultations provided over the course of
a year. Most complaints were lodged against the
81% of veterinary practitioners in private practice in
2005/6.
Based on an estimate that each practitioner saw on
average 10 cases per working day, there were
4,099,500 animal consultations in Victoria in the
reporting period, which equates to one complaint per
89,119 animal consultations or less than 0.001%.
This is significant in that it shows that the vast
majority of veterinary consultations are conducted at
a standard that is acceptable to animal owners
Page 7 of 10

GUIDELINES
The Veterinary Practice Act 1997 states
in Section 62(1)(e) that “The Board has the
following function – to issue guidelines about
appropriate standards of veterinary practice and
veterinary facilities” Consequently the
Board expects registered veterinary
practitioners to follow the guidelines
issued by the Board as minimum
standards in veterinary practice. The
expectation is also that veterinary
practitioners will keep up-to-date with
their guidelines so they are always
referring the most recent issue of a
particular guideline.
Although Guidelines will continue to be
updated as necessary throughout the
year, acting on suggestions from
registered veterinary practitioners all
Guidelines issued by the Board will be
reviewed annually – in July.
Guidelines will be identified as having
been ‘updated’ meaning that amendments
have been made to the guideline, or as
‘reviewed’ meaning that the guideline is
current.
A listing showing the most current
update/review date will be included on
the Guidelines page of the website, and
printed as a standard item in each issue
of Board Update.
Practitioners will be able to download a
new set of guidelines from the website
from the end of August and may obtain a
hard copy on request to the office (9620
7444).
Currency of Guidelines as at July 2006
Guideline
Status
1 Standards of Veterinary Practice Reviewed July 2006
2 Standards of House-Call Reviewed July 2006
Practices
3 Standards of Mobile Veterinary Reviewed July 2006
Clinics
4 After-Hours Hospitalisation Reviewed July 2006
5 Provision of Certificates Reviewed July 2006
6 Supply and Use of Drugs in Updated July 2006
Veterinary Practice
7 Employer/Employee Relations Reviewed July 2006
8 Communication with Clients Updated July 2006
9 Obligation to Provide Treatment Reviewed July 2006
10 Euthanasia of Animals Updated July 2006
11 Veterinary Medical Records Updated July 2006
12 Caesarean Section in Dogs and Reviewed July 2006
Cats
13 Continuing Professional Reviewed July 2006
Development
14 Registered Specialists and Reviewed July 2006
Specialist Practice Standards
15 Inter-Practitioner
Reviewed July 2006
Communications
16 Conflict of Interest for Reviewed July 2006
Veterinary Practitioners
17 Provision of Services Across Reviewed July 2006
Borders & Remote Clients
Updates to Guidelines are:
6 6.7.1 and 6.8 relating to the re-scheduling of
Ketamine
8 8.5 relating to the use of consent forms
10 10.4.1 relating to medical records for stray animals
11 11.1.8 relating to medical records for stray
animals
11.2.1 retention of medical records
11.2.2 and 11.2.3 deleted
11.3.2 relating to transfer of medical records
11.4 – 11.4.4 – renumbered to 11.5 – 11.5.4
11.4 – 11.4.3 new clauses relating to sale, transfer
or closure of a practice
“OFF-LABEL” USE OF DRUGS
The Board has been made aware, through
the complaints process, that there are
registered veterinary practitioners who are
not following Guideline 6.15 in their
prescribing of “off-label” drugs. It is of
concern to the Board that the misuse of
the privilege to be able to supply “offlabel”
may lead to the withdrawal of this
privilege.
Veterinary practitioners must be aware of
the legal limits that have been placed on
the “off-label” prescribing of drugs as
detailed in Guideline 6.15. They must also
be aware of the restrictions placed by the
Agriculture and Veterinary Chemicals Act,
also explained in Guideline 6.15
.It is essential that veterinary practitioners
who prescribe “off-label” advise the client
of what they are doing and explain why they
are prescribing this particular drug. The
informed consent of the client must also be
documented in the clinical records of the
animal concerned.
Page 8 of 10

BOARD UPDATE VOL. 30, no 2 Winter 2006
WWW.VETBOARD.VIC.GOV.AU
The website of the Board now has its own
search engine. This facility is available on the
three main pages of the site: Home, Public
and Vets.
When searching for registered veterinary
practitioners on the website, on either the
Public or Vets page, a number of searching
tips need to be remembered:
1. If a practitioner has only given a
private address, the location and
postcode will not appear.
2. Business telephone numbers are
only included if they have been
provided by the practitioner
3. Search on one field at a time as
searching is literal, consequently
if there is no information in one
of the fields the search result will
be zero.
4. Occasionally spelling errors
are made in the database so
if a search in one field is
unsuccessful, try another
field.
5. When searching on location
it may be preferable to use
the postcode as location
names can be input in a
number of different
formats, depending on how
it is supplied by the
applicant, eg Carlton Nth or
Nth Carlton
6. Non-practising veterinarians
and veterinarians holding
specific or conditional
registration are not listed on
the website.
7. The on-line Register is
updated monthly after the
Board meeting, so if a
practitioner does not appear
please ring the office to
check on their status.
The Links are kept as up to date as
possible. If, in the process of using a
link, it is discovered to be no longer
current please contact the office and
advise which link it is so we can organise
to have it updated. Either telephone 03
9620 7444, fax 03 9620 7044 or email
deputyregistrar@vetboard.vic.gov.au.
BOARD PUBLICATIONS
The 2006 Vet List is available for those
practitioners who would like a copy. A
mailing list is kept in the office of
practitioners who wish to receive a Vet List
every year, as they are no longer posted out
automatically. If you would like to be added
to that mailing list please advise the office
and also the address to which the Vet List is
to be posted.
The 2005-2006 Annual Report of the
Board will be available in early October.
Copies of the Annual Report can be
provided to practitioners. Please advise
the office if you would like to receive one
or be placed on the annual mailing list.
The Annual Report will also be available
to be downloaded from the website.
Page 9 of 10

DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES
BOARD MEMBERS
Veterinary Practitioners Registration Board
of Victoria
Applications for selection to seven positions on the Veterinary
Practitioners Registration Board of Victoria are now being
sought from suitably qualified people who are interested in the
veterinary profession.
The Board
The Veterinary Practitioners Registration Board of Victoria
is a statutory authority created through the passing of the
Veterinary Practice Act 1997.
The legislative functions of the Board are:
• to register veterinary practitioners;
• to investigate complaints against registered
veterinary practitioners;
• to subject registered veterinary practitioners to disciplinary
procedures when appropriate;
• to issue guidelines; and
• to advise the Minister on any matters relating to the
Board’s functions.
The Board’s mission is to protect the public by ensuring access
to veterinary services of an appropriate standard, delivered by
veterinary practitioners acting in accordance with appropriate
standards of professional conduct through the effective and
efficient administration of the Veterinary Practice Act 1997.
Candidates
Of the seven positions to be filled, four are to be registered
veterinary practitioners, one is to be a lawyer and two persons
are not to be veterinary practitioners, but may have an interest
in the use of veterinary services. The term of office of these
part-time positions is three years from 18 March 2007 and
a statutory sitting fee is applicable.
Appointment
The Board is established under the Veterinary Practice Act 1997
and members are appointed by the Governor in Council upon
the recommendation of the Minister for Agriculture following
consideration of the applications.
Applications
Applications are invited from veterinary practitioners, and
suitably qualified and interested people who can contribute
with expertise in finance and business management, legal
practice and the use of veterinary services.
You must provide details of your qualifications, knowledge and
experience which you believe qualifies you for appointment.
Applications in writing should be forwarded to:
Miss Hilary Pope, Project Officer, Chief Veterinary Officer’s Unit,
Department of Primary Industries, 475 Mickleham Road,
Attwood, VIC 3049, or by e-mail to hilary.pope@dpi.vic.gov.au
Applications close: Tuesday 5 September 2006.
For information about DPI visit the website
at www.dpi.vic.gov.au or call the Customer
Service Centre on 136 186.
F PRIMARY INDUSTRIES
Board Members
Page 10 of 10