12 Aug 2024
A long-serving veterinary nurse has sought her own removal from the RCVS register to settle disciplinary proceedings over the removal of a microchip from a cat at a Suffolk practice.
Image © stadtratte / Fotolia
A Suffolk-based RVN who practised for 40 years before retiring has been removed from the RCVS register voluntarily after disciplinary allegations were brought against her.
Bronwyn Anne Nicholls faced a disciplinary committee over allegations that she had participated in the unnecessary surgical removal of a cat’s microchip and then failed to disclose it.
But the hearing was adjourned, with no new date fixed, after the panel accepted a written undertaking from Ms Nicholls to seek her own removal from the register.
She said she would “never apply” for restoration in the future and understood that the case against her would be re-opened if she did so.
She also agreed to provide a witness statement in connection with ongoing college proceedings against another individual, whose name has been redacted in the published report of the case.
A disciplinary hearing, held on 24 July, was told that Ms Nicholls had retired from practice in the summer of 2022 without a single adverse disciplinary finding against her during 40 years in practice.
The panel also heard she had referred herself to the college over the surgery performed on a cat named Shadow in December 2021.
Ms Nicholls was charged with participating in an operation that was not clinically justified and failing to disclose details of the procedure to her then employers.
The report said her legal representative, Mark Harries KC, had argued that criticism of his client was based on her actions under the direction of a vet “whom the evidence suggested it was difficult to question”.
He suggested that granting the application, which was not opposed by the college, would be “an efficient disposal of the proceedings”.
Although the committee found the alleged conduct was at the lower end of the scale, the report said the fact Ms Nicholls had acted under veterinary did not outweigh her own professional responsibilities.
But it also recognised the incident was “a singular event of clinical failing during the course of a longer career” and informed members of the public would not be concerned by the application being granted.