Disciplinary Committee suspends London vet for six months

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee last week [1 October 2013] suspended a London-based veterinary surgeon from the Register for six months, having found that her falsification of clinical records amounted to serious professional misconduct.

At the two-day hearing, Dr Nicola Ersilova was charged with, and admitted to, three separate incidences of false and dishonest clinical record keeping following her treatment of a collapsed cat, whilst working at Vets Now in Thamesmead, London.

Both the public and other members of the profession must be entitled to rely on the truthfulness of what a veterinary surgeon has written in the clinical records of any animal [they have] treated

The Committee heard how Dr Ersilova had suspected that Lafite the cat, belonging to Mr Yingzhan Xiao, had been poisoned, so administered fluids and treated her with Lidocaine.

A lay colleague, who was assisting with the treatment, subsequently observed Dr Ersilova standing staring at the cat, which had stopped breathing, then leaving the room to go and speak to Mr Xiao.

The lay colleague’s evidence confirmed to the Committee that Lafite’s heart was still beating at this point, and that Dr Ersilova was then heard telling Mr Xiao that Lafite had died while being treated.

The lay colleague later discovered that Dr Ersilova had listed calcium gluconate on Mr Xiao’s bill and not Lidocaine and, when she questioned the entry, Dr Ersilova told her she was worried about getting into trouble if she had listed Lidocaine.

Whilst reporting these irregularities to the senior veterinary surgeon at Vets Now, the lay colleague noticed that Dr Ersilova had also written “CPR unsuccessful” in the notes, although she was certain CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) had not been attempted.

During a subsequent Vets Now investigation, Dr Ersilova admitted adding this false information concerning Lidocaine, calcium gluconate and CPR, saying during interview that she was aware it was serious professional misconduct and that she was prepared to take the consequences. Vets Now reported the matter to the RCVS.

The Committee considered that all evidence before it fully supported the charges against Dr Ersilova, that her conduct was clearly dishonest, and that her actions were inexcusable, especially for someone as experienced as she was.

It stated that a veterinary surgeon’s duty to make only truthful and accurate records was so manifest and well known to veterinary surgeons that there could be no real excuse to make such false, misleading and dishonest entries.

The Committee highlighted the comment by Dr Ersilova that she knew she had done something wrong but did not expect her colleague to report her, as providing no explanation, or excuse, for doing something which she knew to be wrong.

A number of submissions were made to the Committee in mitigation, including that Dr Ersilova had admitted her dishonesty to both her employers and the Committee; had an otherwise unblemished record over 22 years of practice; had received no immediate financial gain by her actions; and, did not cause any animal suffering.

Accepting these submissions, the Committee nevertheless felt it needed to balance them against other factors.

Dr Ersilova’s decision to falsify the records was premeditated and had not been taken without an opportunity for full reflection. There were numerous entries in the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct that highlighted the importance of professional integrity and accuracy, and, given the importance which the Code attached to the duty of veterinary surgeons to be truthful and honest in all their dealings with their clients, the Committee found Dr Ersilova’s conduct to be “most reprehensible”.

Speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, its Vice-Chairman, Professor Sheila Crispin, said:

“It is of great importance that the public should be able to retain confidence in the honesty and integrity of members of the profession.

"Both the public and other members of the profession must be entitled to rely on the truthfulness of what a veterinary surgeon has written in the clinical records of any animal [they have] treated.

“It is [our] decision that the sanction of suspension adequately reflects the seriousness of the [Dr Ersilova’s] conduct.

"The sanction imposed is ... the most appropriate to inform the profession how seriously such dishonest conduct will be taken, because such conduct clearly brings the profession into disrepute and ... cannot and will not be tolerated.”

The Committee then concluded that the least period of suspension that could be justified was one of six months.