Register

Login

Vet Times logo
+
  • View all news
  • Vets news
  • Vet Nursing news
  • Business news
  • + More
    • Videos
    • Podcasts
  • View all clinical
  • Small animal
  • Livestock
  • Equine
  • Exotics
  • All Jobs
  • Your ideal job
  • Post a job
  • Career Advice
  • Students
About
Contact Us
For Advertisers
NewsClinicalJobs
Vet Times logo

Vets

All Vets newsSmall animalLivestockEquineExoticWork and well-beingOpinion

Vet Nursing

All Vet Nursing newsSmall animalLivestockEquineExoticWork and well-beingOpinion

Business

All Business newsHuman resourcesBig 6SustainabilityFinanceDigitalPractice profilesPractice developments

+ More

VideosPodcastsDigital Edition

The latest veterinary news, delivered straight to your inbox.

Choose which topics you want to hear about and how often.

Vet Times logo 2

About

The team

Advertise with us

Recruitment

Contact us

Vet Times logo 2

Vets

All Vets news

Small animal

Livestock

Equine

Exotic

Work and well-being

Opinion

Vet Nursing

All Vet Nursing news

Small animal

Livestock

Equine

Exotic

Work and well-being

Opinion

Business

All Business news

Human resources

Big 6

Sustainability

Finance

Digital

Practice profiles

Practice developments

Clinical

All Clinical content

Small animal

Livestock

Equine

Exotics

Jobs

All Jobs content

All Jobs

Your ideal job

Post a job

Career Advice

Students

More

All More content

Videos

Podcasts

Digital Edition


Terms and conditions

Complaints policy

Cookie policy

Privacy policy

fb-iconinsta-iconlinkedin-icontwitter-iconyoutube-icon

© Veterinary Business Development Ltd 2025

IPSO_regulated

23 Jan 2025

Shropshire vet reprimanded for ‘moment of madness’ over false results

author_img

Vet Times

Job Title



Shropshire vet reprimanded for ‘moment of madness’ over false results

Image © Fotolia/BillionPhotos.com.

A Shropshire-based vet has been reprimanded and warned about her future conduct after admitting allowing a colleague to order medication intended for human use and recording false patient test results.

Emma Jane Evans told an RCVS disciplinary committee that she had felt “isolated” and “a failure” around the time of the incidents.

The panel deemed her guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, but stressed confidence that she had not “set out to act dishonestly”.

The case, which was the subject of a four-day hearing earlier this month, related to incidents at a Medivet practice in Shrewsbury where Dr Evans was a branch partner and lead vet.

Nurse colleague

She admitted allowing a nurse colleague, identified only as Miss JC in a newly published report of the hearing, to order fluconazole from a supplier knowing it was intended for human use in November 2022.

She also admitted recording false blood test results for a cat from whom an insufficient sample had been obtained in May 2023 and communicating those results to the animal’s owner.

The report said Dr Evans had herself reported the matters to the college in August 2023, having been directed to do so following an internal investigation.

‘Trying to be kind’

During that process, she admitted being aware the medication was intended for human use even though it was recorded as having been prescribed to a cat, adding: “I hold my hands up and I know it’s not right, I was trying to be kind.”

Later, while giving evidence to the committee, she said she had felt “under great pressure … to keep everyone happy and try to make the practice a happy place to work”.

She added that, in the weeks prior to the false results case, she had felt like she was “failing her staff” because of discussions that had been taking place about the potential consideration of redundancies and further felt she had failed by not obtaining a sufficient sample.

She described her subsequent actions as “a moment of madness”, continuing: “It is something I am deeply ashamed of and is a decision I will forever regret.”

Testimonials

The report said the committee had received references and testimonials from 33 colleagues and 104 clients of Dr Evans, including one from a clinician who had interviewed her as part of the initial internal inquiry.

He said her actions “seemed to stem from a misplaced fear of failure rather than any deliberate wrongdoing”.

“This was not the Emma I knew from previous interactions, where she had always been conscientious and professional.”

Aggravating factors

The committee said the case was aggravated by factors including breach of trust, risks to both human health and animal welfare, plus an abuse of position.

But it concluded that a more severe sanction than a reprimand would be “disproportionate and punitive” because of Dr Evans’ mitigation, insight and the unlikelihood of similar wrongdoing taking place.

The panel said: “In both instances she made an initial error of judgement and everything that followed flowed from those errors. She had not acted out of any personal or financial gain or malicious intent.”