View all veterinary jobs
The nurse was suspended from the Register for three months after admitting dishonesty over a dog's bile acid stimulation test, falsely saying she had taken a second blood sample when she had not.
She also admitted removing blood from the first sample and presenting and/or labelling it as if it were a second sample, falsely telling colleagues that the second sample had been taken, and falsely saying a veterinary nurse colleague had assisted her.
She also admitted a second charge that she had been dishonest and misleading.
The Committee said the conduct breached the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses on honesty, integrity, trust and accountability.
It found aggravating factors including a risk of harm to the dog, breaches of employer and colleague trust, false implication of a colleague in the dishonesty, and repeated misconduct.
In mitigation, it said there had been no actual harm to the dog.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "All the charges found proved involved not only misleading statements or behaviour but also dishonesty.
"On three occasions the respondent lied to her colleague about having taken a second blood sample.... BAST is an important test of liver function.
"Such behaviour struck at the heart of the profession of an RVN where honesty is crucial in the undertaking of professional work and is a fundamental tenet of the profession.
"The respondent breached the trust of her colleague as well as her employer's trust, and had the potential to interfere in the care which was being given to the dog... thereby creating a clinical risk, because the correct procedure was not being carried out, and the veterinary surgeon did not know about this.
"The Respondent did not act in the dog's interests."
In deciding sanction, the Committee considered a medical report on the nurse's ill-health at the time, along with mitigating factors including no financial gain, limited opportunity for reflection, insight and remorse, positive testimonials, admissions, a previously unblemished career, and the fact the dishonesty was confined to a single day.
It also said the dishonesty was not premeditated, but arose after she had mistakenly fed the dog when she should not have, meaning the second blood sample should not then have been taken.
Paul added: "The respondent has insight into her conduct and as set out above, there is no real risk of repetition.
"There are no concerns about the respondent's competence or clinical practice in general, and there is no evidence that she would be unfit to return to practice after a period of suspension.
"This process has been a salutary lesson.
"The Committee, therefore, concluded that a period of suspension of three months would be proportionate in this case."
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/veterinary-professionals/conduct-and-guidance/concerns-for-veterinary-professionals/disciplinary-committee-hearings