VN suspended from Register following dishonesty over testing of a dog’s blood sample

The hearing took place from Wednesday 4 March to Monday 9 March 2026 in respect of two charges against Aimee Gibbons.

The first charge related to a bile acid stimulation test (BAST) blood sampling conducted on 13 December 2023 in respect of a dog at a practice in Knutsford, Cheshire. 

Miss Gibbons admitted the following sub-charges:

• 1(a) – that in the practice’s preparation room she had told a veterinary surgeon colleague that she had taken a second blood sample from the dog for the BAST when she had not done so;
   
• 1(b) – that she had removed a quantity of blood from the first sample that had been taken from the dog for the BAST and presented and/or labelled that quantity of blood as if it were a second sample;
   
• 1(c) – that she had, in the wash room, indicated to the same veterinary surgeon colleague that she had taken a second blood sample from the dog for the BAST when she had not done so and told the veterinary surgeon that she had been assisted in doing so by a veterinary nurse colleague; 
   
• 1(d) – that she had told a veterinary nurse colleague that a BAST had been carried out for the dog and had been assisted by a different veterinary nurse colleague in taking the blood sample, when that was not the case;
   
• 1(e) – that she had, in a consultation room at the practice indicated to a veterinary surgeon colleague that she had taken the second blood sample when she had not done so, stating that she had “messed up” the timing of the second sample, or words to that effect.

The second charge, which she also admitted, was that, in relation to the above, she had been dishonest and misleading. She had denied a further subcharge 1(f) and the associated accusation of being dishonest and misleading and, as the RCVS decided to offer no evidence in support of these charges, these charges were dropped. 

Having found the circumstances of charges 1(a) to 1(e) and 2(a) and (b) proven by Miss Gibbons’ admissions, the Committee then considered whether the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct. 

The Committee found that Miss Gibbons breached key aspects of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses around honesty and integrity, client trust and accountability. It also found the following aggravating factors in regard to her admitted conduct – that there was a risk of harm to the dog, a breach of her employer’s trust, a breach of her colleagues’ trust as she was dishonest to them and also falsely implicated her colleague in her dishonesty, and the fact that her misconduct was repeated. In terms of mitigation the Committee considered there was no actual harm to the dog in question. 

Regarding the finding of serious professional misconduct, Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “All the charges found proved involved not only misleading statements or behaviour but also dishonesty. On three occasions the respondent lied to her colleague about having taken a second blood sample…. BAST is an important test of liver function. 

“Such behaviour struck at the heart of the profession of an RVN where honesty is crucial in the undertaking of professional work and is a fundamental tenet of the profession. The Respondent breached the trust of her colleague as well as her employer’s trust, and had the potential to interfere in the care which was being given to the dog… thereby creating a clinical risk, because the correct procedure was not being carried out, and the veterinary surgeon did not know about this. The Respondent did not act in the dog’s interests.”

Having found serious professional misconduct proven, the Committee then went on to consider the most appropriate and proportionate sanction for Miss Gibbons. 

In doing so the Committee considered, in private, a medical report submitted by Miss Gibbons’ counsel regarding her ill-health at the time of the conduct in question. It also took into account the aggravating factors detailed above and some additional mitigating factors including that there was no financial gain from the dishonesty, that the decisions were taken without the opportunity for full reflection, her ill-health at the time, her insight and remorse regarding her conduct, positive testimonials, the fact the dishonesty was confined to a single day, her previously unblemished career and the fact she made admissions regarding her conduct. 

Furthermore, it did not consider that it was premeditated dishonesty as the conduct arose following a mistake which Miss Gibbons made when she fed the dog when she shouldn’t have, which meant that the second blood sample shouldn’t have been taken. 

The Committee decided that the most appropriate sanction was to suspend her from the Register for a period of three months. Commenting on this decision Paul Morris said: 

“The disgraceful conduct was serious. The respondent was not inexperienced, having qualified almost two years before the incident in question. 

“She had also trained for her qualification within a practice with the attendant practical learning this gave. She did not express any concerns to anyone in the practice that day regarding her ability to perform the BAST procedure appropriately. She had a number of opportunities to raise the additional feed given to the dog and thus have the mistake corrected easily the following day. 

“However, she lied and created a narrative falsely implicating a colleague and producing a second sample from the original pre-BAST bloods. A lesser sanction would be inappropriate and insufficient to uphold the wider public interest. 

“The respondent has insight into her conduct and as set out above, there is no real risk of repetition. There are no concerns about the respondent’s competence or clinical practice in general, and there is no evidence that she would be unfit to return to practice after a period of suspension. This process has been a salutary lesson. 

“The Committee, therefore, concluded that a period of suspension of three months would be proportionate in this case.” 

Miss Gibbons has 28 days from being informed of the outcome of the hearing to lodge an appeal against the Committee’s decision. 

Please note: this article is a summary of the hearing to assist in understanding the case and the Committee's decision. The full documentation for the hearing can be found on our Disciplinary Committee hearings webpage.