VN suspended for leaving animals unattended and falsifying clinical records

The RCVS Veterinary Nurses’ Disciplinary Committee (VN DC) has directed that a West Midlands-based veterinary nurse be suspended from the Register for six months, after she admitted a number of charges relating to leaving hospitalised animals unattended and falsifying clinical records.

Julie Hickman was represented by her counsel before the VN DC between Wednesday 10 and Friday 12 September. Miss Hickman was not present at the hearing and the VN DC, having heard submissions from her counsel, was satisfied to proceed in Miss Hickman’s absence. At the start of the hearing Miss Hickman admitted all of the five charges against her in a written statement.

Charges one, two and three related to a period of more than three hours on 8 November 2022 in which she left three dogs that had been hospitalised unattended, and had then falsified clinical records to suggest she had made the relevant clinical checks and offered them water when she had, in fact, fallen asleep.

“The Committee was in no doubt that the respondent’s failure to monitor properly three patients in an overnight ward in a hospital and the subsequent creation of false records to suggest that appropriate monitoring had taken place amounts to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”

The first charge relates to a female Cavalier King Charles Spaniel who had undergone surgery the day before, the second to a female English Bull Terrier that had also undergone surgery the day before, and the third to a male cross-breed dog that had been hospitalised for monitoring.

Charge four was that leaving the animals unattended and falsifying the records was potentially detrimental to animal welfare, while charge five was that her actions in falsifying the records were dishonest and misleading.

As the charges had been admitted, the Committee considered whether the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct. In doing so it noted sections of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses that relate to making animal health and welfare a veterinary nurse’s primary concern; the need to provide veterinary nursing care that is appropriate and adequate; and the need to keep clear, accurate and detailed clinical and client records.

Dr Kathryn Peaty MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was in no doubt that the respondent’s failure to monitor properly three patients in an overnight ward in a hospital and the subsequent creation of false records to suggest that appropriate monitoring had taken place amounts to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”

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

“The Committee was satisfied that a significant period of suspension would properly reflect the gravity of the respondent’s disgraceful conduct, serve to maintain the reputation of the profession and promote and maintain proper standards of conduct. The Committee considered that a period of suspension of six months was sufficient to satisfy this public interest.”

The Committee found that an adverse health condition had influenced the conduct that had led to the disciplinary hearing – including that she had unintentionally fallen asleep while she should have been monitoring the animals – and so considered this a mitigating factor. (Please note: the Committee had accepted an application from Miss Hickman’s counsel that details of the matters relating to her health be heard in private).

Also, by way of mitigation, the Committee considered that Miss Hickman had fully appreciated the implications of her conduct and expressed remorse at the impact it could have on the public’s trust for the veterinary nursing profession. It also took into account positive testimonials from current and previous employers, her hitherto unblemished career, and the fact that there was no longer any risk of repetition.

However, in terms of aggravating factors, the Committee took into account that it was a case involving dishonesty, and dishonesty which had not been admitted to the RCVS at an early stage. In addition, it noted that the conduct involved a risk of injury to animals and a breach of trust towards the owners of those animals.

Dr Peaty added: “The Committee was satisfied that a significant period of suspension would properly reflect the gravity of the respondent’s disgraceful conduct, serve to maintain the reputation of the profession and promote and maintain proper standards of conduct. The Committee considered that a period of suspension of six months was sufficient to satisfy this public interest.”

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

Please note: The full decision of the Committee can be found on our disciplinary hearings webpage.