Suffolk VN agrees to voluntarily remove herself from the Register

A Suffolk-based veterinary nurse voluntarily agreed to remove herself from the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Register after she faced allegations relating to clinical failures and dishonesty.

Bronwyn Anne Nicholls appeared before the Veterinary Nurse Disciplinary Committee on Wednesday 24 July 2024 in respect of three charges against her regarding the inappropriate surgical removal of a microchip from a cat in December 2021, the failure to disclose this surgical procedure to her employer and associated accusations of dishonesty.

At the outset of the hearing Ms Nicholls made an application to adjourn the hearing while undertaking to voluntarily remove herself from the Register, to never seek to reapply to join the Register and to supply a witness statement in respect of a separate RCVS investigation into the conduct of a veterinary surgeon.

The application was made on the basis that Ms Nicholls was 74 years old with a 40-year and hitherto unblemished career in veterinary nursing, that she had now been retired for more than two years, that she had referred herself to the College and fully engaged with the investigation process, that she had undertaken the procedure under the direction of a veterinary surgeon, that there was no financial gain and that the alleged misconduct related to a single animal.

“Taking all matters into consideration and in particular the singular nature of the clinical event and dishonesty at the low end of the scale, the Committee placed weight on the fact that removal of the respondent’s registration together with an undertaking to never re-apply exceeded the potential sanction which could be imposed, following any hearing."

The RCVS, as the prosecuting authority, did not oppose the application and it was therefore left for the Committee to decide whether or not to grant it.

Dr Kathryn Peaty MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee noted that the respondent has a long and unblemished career, also that she had self-referred and cooperated with the College and was prepared to act as a witness in other proceedings. However, it regarded those matters as going to the proper conduct of a professional and not of particular weight in the application.

“Although the Committee noted that the evidence tended to show that the respondent had acted at the direction of a veterinary surgeon, it considered that this did not outweigh the respondent’s own professional obligations in the relevant events. Further, this factor did not touch on the dishonesty allegation.

"The Committee did, in the respondent’s favour, place weight on the fact that this had been a singular event of clinical failing during the course of a long career. Further, the associated dishonesty the Committee assessed at being at the lower end of the scale, on the face of the College’s evidence. It considered that the expectation that veterinary nurses act with honesty in working with others was important, and so the lack of financial benefit did not have a great deal of impact, given the circumstances.

“However, the Committee noted that the respondent had eventually corrected the understanding of her employer and admitted what she had done. Importantly, it was clear that the respondent had admitted her failings to the College in her subsequent dealings with the College.”

She added: “Taking all matters into consideration and in particular the singular nature of the clinical event and dishonesty at the low end of the scale, the Committee placed weight on the fact that removal of the respondent’s registration together with an undertaking to never re-apply exceeded the potential sanction which could be imposed, following any hearing. The Committee also brought into the balance the respondent’s own interests, in not continuing to be subject to the proceedings. The

Committee also noted that the College did not oppose the application.

“The Committee considered that an informed member of the public, if aware of the full facts of the case and the application, would not be alarmed or concerned if the application is granted and public confidence in the profession would not be undermined…. The Committee decided to accede to the application and accept the respondent’s undertakings.”

Please note: This news story has been published to help in understanding the hearing and the Committee's decision. The full details of the case can be found on our disciplinary hearings webpage.