Newcastle-based veterinary nurse removed from Register for acting without and against veterinary surgeon direction

The RCVS Veterinary Nurse Disciplinary Committee has directed that a Newcastle-based veterinary nurse be removed from the Register of Veterinary Nurses after acting without and against the direction of a veterinary surgeon on multiple occasions.

The hearing for Miss Rebecca Davies RVN was held online via Teams from Monday 20 to Friday 24 October 2025. Miss Davies wrote to the College prior to the hearing stating that she would not be attending and she was not represented. The College requested the Committee proceed with the hearing in Miss Davies’ absence which it agreed to do so.

There were four charges against her.

In summary, these were that:

1. During a surgical procedure, Miss Davies failed to follow instructions of a registered veterinary surgeon to increase anaesthesia (NOT PROVED), prepared and/or began to administer a bolus of morphine, lidocaine and ketamine by injection without direction (PROVED) as well as three further boluses (PROVED), placed a feeding tube despite being told not to by a vet (PROVED), and administered intermittent positive-pressure ventilation without direction or authorisation (PROVED).
2. During a surgical procedure, Miss Davies administered Propofol without direction and/or authorisation (PROVED) and placed a catheter despite being told not to do so by a vet (PROVED).
3. During a surgical procedure, Miss Davies administered Methadone intravenously, despite being instructed by a vet to administer it intramuscularly (PROVED).
4. During a surgical procedure, Miss Davies administered Maropitant without direction and/or authorisation (PROVED).

Miss Davies made no admissions to any of the charges.

Taking all the evidence put before it into account, including Miss Davies’ previous communications with the College as well as evidence from her colleagues, the Committee found all charges bar one proved. Charge 1a, relating to the anaesthesia increase, was found not proved due to lack of evidence.

In deciding on whether the proven facts amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee took into account the aggravating factor that all charges caused risk of injury to an animal or human. There were no mitigating factors. The Committee found that Miss Davies’ conduct indicated an unwillingness and inability to act according to the veterinary surgeons’ instructions/directions. It noted that Miss Davies acted on at least seven occasions contrary to the instructions given or without seeking direction or authorisation, despite her position within the surgical team.

It also found that Miss Davies had breached multiple areas of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses. Including the Code obligations that veterinary nurses must make animal health and welfare their first consideration when attending to animals and that veterinary nurses must communicate with veterinary surgeons and each other to ensure the health and welfare of the animal or group of animals. It therefore found that, with the exception of administering intermittent positive-pressure ventilation without direction or authorisation, the remaining proved facts amounted to serious professional misconduct.

The Committee then went on to consider the most appropriate and proportionate sanction. In doing so, it took into account aggravating and mitigating factors. Aggravating factors included that the conduct was sustained over a period of approximately eight months and took place during four separate surgical procedures, and that Miss Davies posed a risk to animals on each occasion. The Committee considered that there were a number of mitigating factors including the fact that Miss Davies had been on the Register of Veterinary Nurses since 17 January 2006 with no previous disciplinary findings against her, positive testimonials from a colleague working with Miss Davies at the time of the incidents, and the fact that Miss Davies had expressed some remorse in a letter regarding her conduct in relation to charges 3 and 4.

Colin Childs, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee found that the charges represented a serious departure from the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses and also that there was evidence that Miss Davies had put her own interests before the health and welfare of animals either by not following the instructions of veterinary surgeons or by acting unilaterally, in relation to the administration of medicines or the placement of a catheter or feeding tube during four surgical procedures.

"Since the Committee could not assess Miss Davies’ future risk or her insight in her absence, it therefore decided that removal was the only proportionate sanction because any other sanction would not protect animals or the public in the future without those matters having been adequately assessed. Such a sanction also met the wider public interest."

“Since the Committee could not assess Miss Davies’ future risk or her insight in her absence, it therefore decided that removal was the only proportionate sanction because any other sanction would not protect animals or the public in the future without those matters having been adequately assessed. Such a sanction also met the wider public interest.

“The Committee therefore directed that the Registrar remove Miss Davies from the Register of Veterinary Nurses.”

Miss Davies has 28 days from the sanction being announced to appeal the Committee’s decision.

Please note: this news story is intended to help with understanding the case and the Committee's decision. The full decision of the Committee can be found on our disciplinary hearings webpage.