Vet nurse struck off for ‘serious dishonesty’

A veterinary nurse has been struck off for dishonesty during an internal grievance process and a subsequent college investigation.

Amy Adkins had insisted her actions had not brought the profession into disrepute before disengaging from the disciplinary process and requesting voluntary removal from the RCVS register.

But a college disciplinary committee which considered the case in her absence last month concluded her actions “represented a serious departure from professional standards” for which she had shown “no meaningful remorse”.

Specific charges

Miss Adkins faced two specific charges arising from an internal inquiry instigated by her then employer, Medivet, early last year and the college process that followed it. The identity of the practice involved has not been disclosed.

She was accused of denying comments she was subsequently found to have been recorded making to an individual who brought a grievance, identified only as Person A.

It was further alleged that she had been dishonest in further communications with the college over concerns that a vet referred to as Person B had prescribed buprenorphine for a cat that was living overseas.

No admissions

The report said Miss Adkins had made no admissions, did not accept she had brought the profession into disrepute and claimed the recording of her conversation with Person A was unlawful.

She also claimed to have forgotten the recorded conversation with Person A, whom she accused of having “orchestrated” the situation.

However, she subsequently withdrew from the process in May of this year and requested voluntary removal from the register the following month, insisting she had “no intention of returning” to practice.

Disgraceful conduct

But the committee found both charges “proved in their entirety” and that Miss Adkins’ actions amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

While it acknowledged her objection to the recording, the panel found it to be “a reliable and accurate reflection” of what was said and considered Miss Adkins’ account to the college to be inconsistent with what she had told her employer.

The report also found Miss Adkins had shown “a blatant disregard” for the college’s role and professional regulation, concluding her actions were “fundamentally incompatible” with her remaining on the register.