VN removed from Register for dishonesty with RCVS and internal grievance process

The hearing for Amy Adkins, who did not attend the hearing nor was represented, took place from Monday 21 to Wednesday 23 September in respect of three charges against her. 

The first charge related to dishonesty during an internal grievance process in or around January 2025 with her then employer Medivet, in which she told an investigator she had not made certain comments to the aggrieved party (Person A), when she in fact had. The comments to Person A were based on what Miss Adkins said a third party (Person B) had said about Person A. 

The second charge was dishonesty relating to two comments Miss Adkins had made by email to the RCVS in 2025 regarding concerns raised by Person A about Person B prescribing buprenorphine to a cat overseas. The first comment was that she was unaware why Person A had made the allegations about Person B based on one set of messages without speaking to her or Person B directly. The second comment was that the accusation may have stemmed from an overheard conversation when it had, in fact, come about because Miss Adkins had spoken to and exchanged messages with Person A about Person B prescribing buprenorphine to a cat overseas. 

The third and final charge was that, in relation to the above charges, Miss Adkins had been dishonest and misleading in what she communicated to the internal Medivet investigator and the RCVS. 

“The Committee was of the view that the dishonest and misleading accounts given by the respondent to her employer and the College had breached the fundamental principles of honesty and integrity expected of the profession. This conduct also risked bringing the profession into disrepute with the public and eroding public confidence in the veterinary profession.”

 

At the outset of the hearing the Committee decided to continue with proceedings in Miss Adkins’ absence. Prior to the hearing she had made no admissions as to the charges, said that she did not believe that she brought the profession into disrepute and said it was an internal employment matter. 

In determining the facts of the case, the Committee found all three charges proved. 

The Committee then went on to consider whether the proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, finding that all three charges fell far short of the conduct expected of a veterinary nurse. 

Hilary Lloyd, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was of the view that the dishonest and misleading accounts given by the respondent to her employer and the College had breached the fundamental principles of honesty and integrity expected of the profession. This conduct also risked bringing the profession into disrepute with the public and eroding public confidence in the veterinary profession.”

Having found serious professional misconduct, the Committee then went on to consider the most appropriate and proportionate sanction for Miss Adkins, taking into account both aggravating and mitigating factors. 

In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee found that Miss Adkins demonstrated: a blatant disregard of the role of the RCVS and the systems that regulate the veterinary profession; no genuine insight into the misconduct; a failure to take responsibility for her dishonesty and continuing to blame others; no genuine remorse and a limited apology to those affected by her misconduct; and, no evidence of remediation or reassurance that she would not repeat such behaviour. The Committee did not identify any mitigating factors. 

In deciding that the most appropriate decision was to remove Miss Adkins from the Register, Hilary Lloyd said: “The conduct represented a serious departure from professional standards; these were particularly serious and repeated instances of dishonesty; the respondent has not demonstrated any meaningful remorse, beyond a limited apology for her behaviour and instead has sought to blame others; she has not demonstrated any recognition of the impact of her behaviour on public confidence and trust in the profession. The Committee was therefore of the view that the nature and seriousness of the respondent’s dishonesty coupled with the absence of any meaningful insight, remediation and remorse was fundamentally incompatible with continuing to be registered as a veterinary nurse.” 

The full facts and findings regarding the hearing can be found on our Disciplinary Committee hearings webpage.