All Headlines >>
Ms Strangeway faced eight charges against her.
The first five charges alleged that Ms Strangeway falsely claimed on hospitalisation records that she had attended the practice where she was employed to monitor hospitalised animals overnight, when she had not in fact done so.
In two of the cases Ms Strangeway also recorded on the form that she had provided the prescribed medication.
The sixth charge was that she had held herself out and practised as a registered veterinary nurse, despite not being on the RCVS Register at the time.
The remaining two charges related to the fact that her conduct as described in the previous charges was dishonest, misleading and potentially detrimental to animal welfare.
The Committee found all factual allegations proven by way of the respondent’s admissions and witness evidence, which included relevant CCTV footage and alarm data.
The Committee also found that the respondent’s conduct did amount to serious professional misconduct based on her dishonesty and the fact the conduct was sustained and repeated and created a risk to animal health and welfare.
The Committee then considered aggravating factors, including that there was a risk of injury to animals, the sustained nature of the misconduct, that there was actual or potential financial gain, that there was an abuse of a position of trust and responsibility, and that she had shown a wilful disregard of the RCVS and the systems regulating the veterinary nursing profession.
In mitigation, the Committee considered that there had been no actual harm to animals, that admissions to the allegations had been made at an early stage, that the respondent had displayed both remorse and insight regarding her conduct, including apologising to the practice, that she was of previously good character, and that she was ordinarily a good veterinary nurse.
Ms Cerys Jones, speaking on behalf of the Committee, said: “This is a case involving serious dishonesty, sustained over a period of time, and conduct potentially detrimental to animal welfare, as well as wilful disregard of professional regulations.
"Regrettably, the Committee has decided that, in this case, the respondent’s misconduct is so serious that removal from the Register is the only means of protecting animals and the wider public interest.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vet nurses.