board update - Veterinary Practitioners Registration Board of Victoria

Vol. 29, no. 3 Summer 2005
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
Message from the President
Leigh Coghlan
Veterinary Specialists
The endorsement of registration status as a specialist is only
gained after an exacting course of study generally completed
through the Australian College of Veterinary Scientists
Fellowship programme, or the American College Diplomate
system.
Level 11, 470 Collins Street,
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 3000
Telephone +613 9620 7444
Facsimile +613 9620 7044
Email enquiries@vetboard.vic.gov.au
Practitioners holding specialist endorsement in Victoria now
number 62 and the Board’s statistics show the numbers are
growing annually – eight in the last financial year. Also the
age of practitioners applying for endorsement is decreasing
and this augers well for the future health and well-being of
Victoria’s animals.
We extend congratulations to those practitioners who have
recently been granted endorsement as a veterinary specialist.
You will find a full list of registered specialists on page 7.
Referral Practitioners
It is also well accepted that practitioners with a professional
interest in a particular branch of veterinary medicine or
surgery, but who do not hold endorsement as a veterinary
specialist, may offer referral services to the profession.
Practitioners offering these services must be aware of the
advertising provisions of the Veterinary Practice Act 1997 to
ensure there is no confusion in their registration status.
Within the profession it is widely understood that a
practitioner offering such services to the profession may
describe themselves as a ‘consultant’ but there is no routine
understanding of that terminology in the public arena. Many
users of veterinary services do not know specialist veterinary
services are available, nor the difference between a Veterinary
Specialist and a practitioner offering a referral service.
To be consistent in describing veterinary services offered to
the profession and the public, the use of the words
‘professional interest practitioner’ may provide better
understanding.
All registered veterinary practitioners whether accessing or
providing referral services must be familiar with Guideline 14,
particularly in regard to the need to properly inform the
animal owner of the registration status of the practitioner to
whom the referral is to be made, to ensure the public are not
misled as to their registration status.
WISHING YOU AND YOURS THE COMPLIMENTS OF
THE SEASON
Inside this issue:
If you suspect a pet has
been Poisoned – Who do
you call? 2
Staff vacancy -
Complaints Officer 2
Heath Act 1958 (as amended)
and Health (Radiation
Safety) Regulations 1994 3
Importance of Consent
Forms 3
Complaints Case Study 1-
Unauthorised treatment
(euthanasia) 4
Complaints Case Study 2
Unauthorised treatment 5
Alfaxan 6
Legal Requirements for
Microchip Implanters in
Victoria 6
Apology 6
Registered Veterinary
Specialists 7
Guidelines Updated 8
AEVA Code of Conduct
for Veterinarians in the
Racing Industry 8
New Website 8
Renew your registration
on-line 8

IF YOU SUSPECT A PET HAS BEEN POISONED – WHO DO YOU CALL?
from Department of Primary Industries Chemical Standards
Veterinary practitioners are almost always the first
port of call when an individual suspects their pet
may have ingested a poison. The Department of
Primary Industries (DPI) Chemical Standards has a
regulatory role in investigating the misuse of
agricultural and veterinary chemicals. The most
common chemicals involved in poisoning of
domestic pets are strychnine, fox baits containing
1080, and certain organophosphate or carbamate
insecticides.
Although experienced veterinarians are often
confident in recognising the signs of poisoning
due to chemicals such as 1080, strychnine and
organophosphates, DPI has encountered
difficulty in conducting investigations due to the
subjective nature of clinical diagnosis, and the
lack of samples being taken. In any investigation
it is vital that evidence is gathered to determine
the true cause of the poisoning, that other causes
are ruled out, and that all evidence is preserved
intact. Some past investigations have been
compromised by lack of samples, or poor
practices such as the storing of samples, ie animal
stomach contents, in used coffee jars or shopping
bags.
The following points may help veterinarians to
assist DPI investigators:
• Conduct a necropsy, collect relevant samples,
and contact DPI officers as soon as possible.
• The type of sample(s) collected will depend
upon the animal and what type of chemical you
suspect has been the cause of the poisoning.
Samples of the stomach contents and urine are
of particular value and should be collected as
COMPLAINTS OFFICER
Part-time position 3 days per week
Responsible for the day-to-day handling of
complaints lodged with the Board against registered
veterinary practitioners. Hands-on position will suit
someone with knowledge of disciplinary process in a
health related field, who possesses patience,
diplomacy, good writing skills, proficiency in
soon as possible.
• Make sure samples cannot be tampered with
– the principle of continuity of evidence is
critical in an investigation, especially when it
proceeds to prosecution.
• Ensure samples are sealed in leak-proof
containers and cannot be contaminated.
Samples should ideally be stored in clean,
sterile containers to rule out contamination
from past storage items. Each sample should
be clearly labelled with the nature of sample
(s) and date collected. Freezing may better
preserve the samples.
• Keep notes relating to the clinical signs of the
animal in question. Background notes can
help guide an investigation in the right
direction by narrowing down the field of
possible chemicals.
DPI Chemical Standards has Chemical Standards
Officers located throughout the state who
investigate poisonings involving the suspected
misuse of agricultural and veterinary chemicals.
Animals may be poisoned by chemicals that fall
outside the range of interest of the DPI, however
veterinary practitioners are encouraged to contact
their local Chemical Standards Officer to discuss
any issues they may have.
If you have an animal that may have been
poisoned by the misuse of an agricultural or
veterinary chemical, please call the DPI customer
service centre on 136 186 and ask to speak to the
Chemical Standards Officer nearest to your
location.
Microsoft Office suite and who has had
experience working as part of a small team in an
administrative support environment. Registered
veterinary practitioner or experience in the
veterinary profession may be an advantage. Copy
of the position description may be obtained by
telephone or email to contacts below. Written
applications addressed in confidence to the
Registrar, will be received by mail, facsimile or
email up to close of business Friday 16 December
2005.
Veterinary Practitioners Registration Board of Victoria
11/470 Collins Street Melbourne Vic 3000
Facsimile (03) 9620 7044
Email registrar@vetboard.vic.gov.au
Page 2 of 8

BOARD UPDATE VOL. 29, no 3 Summer 2005
THE HEALTH ACT 1958 (AS AMENDED) AND HEALTH (RADIATION SAFETY)
REGULATIONS 1994.
The responsibilities of Veterinary Practitioners under these regulations
from the Radiation Safety Unit, Department of Human Services
Practitioners are asked to be aware of the various
Acts & Regulations’ which are relevant to their
professional activities. In particular, practitioners are
reminded that there are several obligations that must
be adhered to when providing radiological services
in their practices.
Registration of irradiating apparatus is mandatory
under these Victorian regulations. Registration
must be renewed yearly upon payment of the
prescribed fees. Application forms for equipment
registration may be obtained by contacting the
Radiation Safety Program on 1300-767-469. Any
change in equipment or ownership is to be reported
to this same body. Registration carries several
conditions of use and it is important that
practitioners familiarise themselves with these
obligations and ensure that these requirements are
met.
The above Act also states that: a person must not
operate, use, store,…sell, possess, install, service, maintain,
repair, test, dispose of or otherwise deal with an ionising
radiation apparatus….unless the person is a holder of a
licence.
The Act provides for registered veterinarians to be
granted an operator licence to use irradiating
apparatus. Veterinary practices that wish to use
unsealed radioisotopes must also obtain a
Management Licence to do so. Veterinary
Practitioners must have their operator licence
endorsed to indicate that they have had suitable
training to carry out the procedures.
Application for operator licences can be obtained
by contacting the Radiation Safety Program or
downloading from their WEB site:
www.health.vic.gov.au/environment/radiation
Allow 3-5 working days for a new application to
be processed.
The wearing of personal radiation monitors is
mandatory when operating an irradiating device
or working with radioactive sources. Monitors
can be obtained from:
ARPANSA: prms@arpansa.gov.au –
Tel: 03-9433-2211
Or
ARS: Tel:03-9873-0088 (Dr Joe Young)
Or
Radiation Wise: Tel: 08-9457-1698
It is recommended that Veterinary Practitioners
obtain a copy of the ‘Radiation Protection Series
Publications’, No. 1 as well as RHS 3 and 10:
‘Code of practice for the safe use of ionizing
radiology in veterinary radiology: Parts 1 and 2
(1982) and part 3- radiotherapy- (currently under
review).
These can be downloaded from ARPANSA:
www.arpansa.gov.au
Practitioners are encouraged to refer any queries
they may have to the Radiation Safety Program
on 1300-767-469 or by emailing to:
radiation.safety@dhs.vic.gov.au
THE IMPORTANCE OF CONSENT FORMS
Guideline 8 discusses communication with
clients especially regarding informing the client
about all available options and recording informed
consent for the chosen option. The Board often
has complaints based on inadequate explanation of
options of treatment and furthermore, the lack of
consent for those treatments.
The Board recommends that consent forms are
used to record the client’s understanding of all the
procedures and the risks involved. These consent
forms should mention the risks (and costs)
involved for the treatment, especially if it involves
sedation, anaesthetic and surgery. They should be
signed by the client and a copy should be
provided to the client to ensure that they are
aware of their commitments.
The consent forms should be easily retrievable
and are expected to be kept for a minimum of 7
years. Commonly, although a verbal discussion of
treatment, options, risks and cost does take place,
the client does not always comprehend the
situation and later say they did not consent to
treatment. Options should be recorded on the
clinical records for your information and on a
signed consent form for the client’s information.
Page 3 of 8

COMPLAINTS CASE STUDIES
CASE STUDY 1 : Unauthorised treatment (euthanasia)
The complainant states that the cat gave birth to
one kitten and became distressed with difficulty
delivering other kittens. The cat was presented to a
veterinary practitioner and was admitted for
medication to induce labour. The complainant left
the kitten with the cat to feed and was informed if
medication did not work surgery would be required.
The veterinary practitioner quoted up to $400 and
explained that payment options were available. The
complainant declined this offer due to the costs
involved. The veterinary practitioner arranged for
the complainant to surrender the cat if surgery was
required so that it could either be re-homed after
surgery or euthanised. The veterinary practitioner
directed the owner to reception to surrender the cat
leaving the practice to determine its fate if the
injection was unsuccessful. The complainant agreed
to this.
Some hours later the complainant discovered the
treatment had not been successful and the cat was
to be euthanised as permission for re-homing it had
not been granted by the clinicians. The veterinary
practitioner states that a friend of the complainant’s
was spoken to, advising the outcome, and they gave
permission for euthanasia. The complainant states
the veterinary practitioner spoke to him over the
telephone, not his friend. He gave authorisation for
euthanasia for the cat.
The complainant later discovered that the kitten had
also been euthanised. The next day the veterinary
practitioner told the complainant’s friend that the
kitten was euthanised with the cat because it was
assumed the complainant was not interested in it.
The veterinary practitioner had not spoken to the
complainant regarding options for the kitten and
the complainant was upset that it had been
euthanised without consent.
The nurse informed the veterinary practitioner that
the surrender form was signed for both the cat and
the kitten. The veterinary practitioner could not
find the form as it is filed separately by number and
there is no connection made to the clinical records
in accordance with the practice’s current policy.
An informal hearing was held into the matter.
There was concern that the veterinary practitioner
did not obtain permission or a consent form for
euthanasia of the day-old kitten. The veterinary
practitioner was found to have engaged in
unprofessional conduct and was cautioned as
follows:-
• To seek clear identification of the person you
speak to over the phone when seeking
permission for euthanasia
• Ensure that you fully discuss costs, options
for treatment or euthanasia for all animals
with the owner
• To ensure permission is granted in each and
every case for euthanasia and other veterinary
treatments
The veterinary practitioner was also counselled as
follows:-
• To be responsible for ensuring that all
appropriate documents are signed by the
owner of an animal and that the owner
understands the content of the documents
• Consider the practice’s protocols and take
responsibility to ensure they are adequate in
each case
• Familiarise yourself with hospital procedures
involving the surrender of animals
• Fulfil the requirements of the Board’s
guidelines in particular Guideline 8 and
Guideline 10
• Ensure that copies of consent forms are
given to the owner
The veterinary practitioner admitted to the panel that
consent for the euthanasia of the day old kitten was
not obtained. The Panel determined that the
veterinary practitioner did not seek specific
instructions regarding the future of the kitten and as a
result, the veterinary practitioner did not comply with
Guideline 10.3 in that there was apparently no
consent form signed for the euthanasia of the kitten.
The veterinary practitioner stated the kitten was not
considered at the time the person on the phone was
spoken to when consent for euthanasia for the cat
was given. At this time the kitten was not mentioned
by either party. Also at the time of the initial
consultation the veterinary practitioner believed the
conservative treatment would be successful and,
therefore, the future of the kitten was not considered.
The Panel accepted the veterinary practitioner’s
explanation that the cat’s admission form for
treatment was discussed with the complainant, the
form had been signed and a copy was given to the
owner. However, the veterinary practitioner stated
this was the first time they had personally organised a
surrender form for an animal, was not familiar with
its appearance or fully aware of procedures.
Page 4 of 8

BOARD UPDATE VOL. 29, no 3 Summer 2005
The responsibility of the paper work was left to the
hospital receptionist. The Panel determined that as
the veterinary practitioner did not find the
surrender form for the cat that this form may not
have existed and the veterinary practitioner was
only relying on the verbal opinion of the veterinary
nurse that it did exist. The veterinary practitioner
stated that the practice information booklet does
not mention surrender forms and it is not usual
practice to give a copy to the owner. The Panel
determined that the protocols at this practice were
inadequate and required changes to be in line with
the Board’s guidelines in that they must ensure that
the details of owners and their pets are linked to the
surrender form and that all information is retrievable.
The Panel found that there was a difference of
opinion in what actually occurred during the phone
call when consent for euthanasia was given and could
not make a determination on that matter. The Panel
found that the veterinary practitioner did not obtain
clear identification of the caller when authorisation
for euthanasia of the cat was obtained.
Whilst it is understood that such a young kitten was
not viable without its mother or a surrogate lactating
queen, the Panel found that this had not been
communicated to the owner who could not
necessarily be expected to have this knowledge.
CASE STUDY 2: Unauthorised treatment
The complainant took a Heeler cross dog to see a
specialist veterinary practitioner for a consultation
regarding a ruptured cruciate ligament. The dog
was examined, confirming diagnosis and whilst the
veterinary practitioner was explaining the problem
and possible surgical options to the complainant,
he asked a vet nurse to take the dog outside. The
complainant assumed this meant to enable the dog
to relieve herself. After consultation and costs of
surgery were explained the complainant informed
the veterinary practitioner she would discuss the
options with her husband and went to retrieve her
dog. The dog’s leg had been shaved and tubing
had been inserted and taped over. The dog was
taken home but was unable to stand or walk until
the next morning. The complainant was very upset
that this happened as no agreement had been made
that surgery was to be performed at that time.
The veterinary practitioner stated that the dog was
referred for assessment and to provide accurate
diagnosis so that appropriate surgical options could
be offered. On examination the dog was found to
have a left anterior cruciate ligament rupture. In
addition, thickening and discomfort involving the
right knee was discovered. Light sedation with
morphine and acepromazine was given to facilitate
more accurate examination. This is the veterinary
practitioner’s usual procedure for strong breed
dogs with problems such as these. The drugs
chosen were used as they have a less depressant
effect on heart and circulatory function. The
drawback is that they last up to 4 hours. The
veterinary practitioner did not agree that the dog
was catheterised or that any expectation was placed
upon the complainant in regard to the dog having
surgery immediately. The dog was difficult to
restrain and the veterinary practitioner determined
sedation was required in order to accurately assess
the situation.
An informal hearing was held into the matter.
There was concern that the veterinary practitioner did
not obtain consent from the client for administration
of analgesia and sedation to the dog. The veterinary
practitioner was found to have engaged in
unprofessional conduct and was cautioned as
follows:-
• That a signed consent form should be
obtained for procedures involving
administration of drugs for sedation and
analgesia
• Clients should be provided with a copy of the
signed consent form and that it should be
ensured that they understand its contents
• That it should be specified in patient clinical
records the type of drug administered, its
dose and time of administration
• That clients are made aware of the effects and
possible side effects of drugs and of any after
care required
The Panel found the veterinary practitioner admitted
to administering the morphine and acepromazine to
the dog without prior consent from the complainant.
The Panel understood the veterinary practitioner’s
reasons for examining the dog with sedation and
analgesia and agreed that for this type of dog this
would be the best way to establish an accurate
diagnosis. The Panel accepted the veterinary
practitioner’s statement that it is usual practice to
obtain signed consent forms for procedures and this
case was an isolated incident.
The Panel found that the veterinary practitioner did
not clearly communicate the procedures to the
complainant causing misunderstanding and distress to
the complainant. The Panel accepted the statement
that the dog was not catheterised or being prepped for
surgery. The dog’s foreleg may have been clipped to
administer the drugs of sedation and analgesia
intravenously.
Page 5 of 8

It was clear that the veterinary practitioner did not
inform the complainant of the effects of this
medication. This caused some distress to the
complainant as they did not understand what was
involved. The veterinary practitioner advised the
Panel that dogs with this condition are usually
admitted for surgery and therefore discharged at a
later time when they are no longer under the
influence of these drugs. The Board and the
veterinary practitioner are aware of the
complainant’s distress and the veterinary
practitioner regrets the incident and offered an
apology.
The Panel found that the veterinary practitioner did
not record the drugs or the doses used in the clinical
records for the dog. The Panel accepted the
veterinary practitioner’s statement that this is normally
recorded and was unable to explain why this was not
completed in this case.
The Panel understands that both verbal and written
communications are essential in cases where any form
of procedure is involved. The public has little
understanding of the procedures involved in the
diagnosis of specific conditions and relies on
veterinary practitioners to be clear in communicating
what is required.
ALFAXAN®
From Jurox Pty Ltd
In the Winter 2005 Board Update the complaints case
study no. 1 mentioned the use of Alfaxan® In
response Jurox Pty Ltd has requested the Board to
insert the following information.
Alfaxan® was a product that was never registered for
use in dogs. Alfaxan® was an image product of the
very successful cat (and monkey) anaesthetic Saffan®.
Both Alfaxan® and Saffan® were formulated in a
Cremaphor carrier that was well known for initiating
histamine release and anaphylactoid reactions that in
dogs were potentially fatal, hence Alfaxan® was
specifically registered for use in cats only.
In the late 1990’s Jurox reformulated the active
alphaxalone in a cyclodextran carrier and then developed
Alfaxan®-CD (a powder for reconstitution) and further
Alfaxan®-CD RTU. This resulted in a removal of the
histamine release seen with Alfaxan® and Saffan®. Thanks
to this Alfaxan®-CD RTU is now becoming more and more
well known as a safe and reliable anaesthetic for use in both
dogs and cats.
Alfaxan®-CD RTU is a very different formulation of
alphaxalone, is registered for use in both dogs and cats and
can be used with confidence in both species.
Understanding the way people abbreviate drug names Jurox
made the decision in 2002 to cease making and selling
Alfaxan®.
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR MICROCHIP IMPLANTERS IN VICTORIA
From 1 December 2005 only registered veterinary
practitioners or suitably qualified persons will be
able to implant microchips into dogs and cats in
Victoria.
ALL persons, including registered veterinary
practitioners, wishing to be authorised to implant
will have to complete a microchip 'course' or, for
future graduates, have done the specified training as
part of their veterinary degree. This course is
currently being developed by the AVA and will be
set up to minimise the impost on veterinarians. The
course is necessary to ensure veterinarians are aware of
the new legislative requirements and their
responsibilities under legislation in regard to
permanent identification, technology, record keeping
and forwarding of information to registries (which will
need to be licensed).
For more information please call the Department of
Primary Industries on (03)9217 4347.
APOLOGY
In the Winter 2005 Board Update a list of registered
veterinary specialists was given with incorrect
information regarding those specialists whose
speciality is Veterinary Surgery – Small Animal. It
is unfortunate that ‘Surgery’ was replaced with
‘Medicine’
and we apologise to all those specialists whose listing
was incorrect.
A corrected listing can be found on the next page with
the addition of two newly endorsed specialists.
Page 6 of 8

BOARD UPDATE VOL. 29, no 3 Summer 2005
REGISTERED VETERINARY SPECIALISTS
to 3 November 2005
RN NAME SN SPECIALIST CATEGORY/BRANCH
365 BLOGG John Rowan 001 Veterinary Ophthalmology
1335 LAVELLE Roger 002 Veterinary Radiology
723 GUNN Ian 003 Veterinary Medicine – Cattle
1353 VASEY James 004 Veterinary Surgery – Equine
2027 EMMS Stephen 005 Veterinary Surgery – Small Animal
1020 CUTLER Ross 007 Veterinary Medicine – Pig
581 SULLIVAN Neill 009 Veterinary Pathobiology – Anatomic/Clinical
873 LORDING Peter 010 Veterinary Pathobiology – General/Clinical
2610 SLOCOMBE Ronald 011 Veterinary Pathobiology - Anatomic
1347 PARRY Bruce 013 Veterinary Pathobiology - Clinical
1451 MCKINNON Angus 014 Veterinary Reproduction - Equine
1713 ROBERTSON-SMITH Russell 015 Veterinary Surgery - Equine
424 MALMO Jakob 019 Veterinary Medicine - Cattle
1138 MACLEAN Alastair 020 Veterinary Surgery - Equine
778 CONDRON Robin 022 Veterinary Pathobiology - Microbiology
566 STUDDERT Virginia 023 Veterinary Medicine – Cat & Dog
1051 MASON Tony 027 Veterinary Surgery – Small Animal
453 HAZARD Geoffrey 028 Veterinary Surgery - Equine
890 LENGHAUS Cornelius 030 Veterinary Pathobiology - General
1304 MCCOLL Kenneth 032 Veterinary Pathobiology – General/Anatomic/Microbiology
1038 SMYTH George 033 Veterinary Surgery - Equine
1306 VAN VEENENDAAL Johannes 034 Veterinary Surgery - Equine
1959 STANLEY Robin 035 Veterinary Ophthalmology
2722 NIMMO Judith 036 Veterinary Pathobiology – General/Anatomic
502 CLARKE Roger 037 Veterinary Surgery – Small Animal
807 HYLAND John 041 Veterinary Reproduction - Equine
1661 MACKIE John 042 Veterinary Pathobiology – General/Anatomic
1518 MACWHIRTER Patricia 043 Veterinary Medicine - Avian
2911 MIDDLETON Deborah 046 Veterinary Pathobiology – General/Clinical/Anatomic
1994 MERRETT Darren 047 Veterinary Medicine - Dog
1385 TULLOCH John 048 Veterinary Medicine – Public Health
669 SPEIRS Victor 049 Veterinary Surgery - Equine
1444 COLES Stephen 050 Veterinary Surgery - Dentistry
1115 TURNER Andrew 052 Veterinary Ophthalmology
2136 LABUC Robert 055 Veterinary Medicine - Dog
448 CHRISTIE Bruce 056 Veterinary Surgery – Small Animal
665 ROBINSON Wayne 057 Veterinary Pathobiology - Anatomic
2962 PRESTON Christopher 058 Veterinary Surgery – Small Animal
4009 NICOLL Robert 059 Veterinary Radiology
4012 ALLAN Graeme 060 Veterinary Radiology
1904 BURTON Gregory 061 Veterinary Medicine - Dermatology
1729 BENNETT Peter 062
063
Veterinary Medicine – Small Animal
Veterinary Medicine - Oncology
2668 HORN Birgitte 064 Veterinary Medicine - Dog
2530 CLARKE David 065 Veterinary Surgery - Dentistry
4179 LEAN Ian 066 Veterinary Medicine - Cattle
2882 BECK Catherine 067 Veterinary Radiology
2878 HARDMAN Chloe 068 Veterinary Ophthalmology
2191 CAVALIERI John 070 Veterinary Reproduction
2060 LAVERTY Peter 073 Veterinary Surgery – Small Animal
1438 MCORIST Steven 074 Veterinary Pathobiology - Microbiology
4543 MILLER Richard 075 Veterinary Pathobiology - General
4551 KUNTZ Charles 076 Veterinary Surgery – Small Animal
4601 WHITTON Robert 078 Veterinary Surgery - Equine
4435 ROSS Anthony 080 Veterinary Pathobiology - Anatomic
3613 O'REILLY Anu 081 Veterinary Ophthalmology
3097 O'BRIEN Carolyn 082 Veterinary Medicine - Cat
2177 WILLIAMSON Mark 083 Veterinary Pathobiology - Anatomic
2693 KUDNIG Simon 084 Veterinary Surgery – Small Animal
2798 WATTS John 085 Veterinary Reproduction – Small Animal
3300 SNELLING Samuel 086 Veterinary Surgery – Small Animal
3904 BASSETT Rebecca 087 Veterinary Medicine - Dermatology
3386 NEIL Kirsten 088 Veterinary Medicine - Equine
Page 7 of 8

GUIDELINES UPDATED
Take this opportunity to update your handbook
The Board’s guidelines 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 17 and the
definitions have been updated. You will be able to
access the updated guidelines from the web page
from the end of November 2005. Guidelines 8
and 10 are being reviewed and will be updated on the
web page in the New Year.
For registered veterinary practitioners who do not
have access to the web, one complete hard copy
revised set will be posted to you on request to the
Board’s offices (9620 7444).
Additional hard copy sets may be purchased for
$55.00.
AEVA CODE OF CONDUCT FOR VETERINARIANS IN THE RACING INDUSTRY
In the last issue of Board Update reference was made
to the Board’s recognition of the AEVA Code of
Conduct for Veterinarians in the Racing Industry.
The Board has received feedback from veterinary
practitioners about the obligations of veterinarians
working in the racing industry and as a result has
established a working group under the auspices of
the Guidelines Committee to further review this
whole issue.
In the meantime, the Board expects practitioners
working within the racing industry to fully comply
with Board Guideline 6, which is considered to be the
critical reference document for all registered
veterinary practitioners with respect to the supply and
use of restricted drugs.
In addition, the Board expects such practitioners to
be familiar with, and ensure they are compliant with,
the Rules of Racing as they relate to the supply and
administration of drugs to racing animals.
NEW WEBSITE
Check it out and give us your feedback!
The Board’s website has been re-designed and will be
operational from December.
The site has been designed in three main sections –
Home; Public; Vets and takes advantage of drop
down menus to make it easier to navigate.
One of the newer facilities will be a “Latest News”
section under the Vets Page – for advice about
updates to the Guidelines and other information
pertinent to registration.
We think that you will find it easier to get around and
look forward to your feedback.
RENEW YOUR REGISTRATION ON-LINE
Renewal of registration on-line is available from 1
December 2005.
Access to the on-line renewal facility is secure.
Only practitioners who have a valid email
address registered with the Board before 31
October, and who are paying the standard fee
may use this payment facility.
All others will need to post their renewal
applications to the Board’s office.
Access www.vetboard.vic.gov.au
Choose the Vets page from the top of the screen
Click on Registration and then choose Online
Renewal from the drop down menu and follow
the prompts.
Remember – as a security measure, the
system will NOT accept an email address not
registered by 31 October.
Renewal certificates will continue to be mailed to you as usual.
The standard renewal fee will apply until midnight Australian Eastern Summer Time 31 December
2005. From one minute past midnight the late renewal fee will apply until midnight Australian Eastern
Standard Time 31 March 2006.
Page 8 of 8