RVN Struck off in 1st Ever VN Disciplinary Hearing

Re: RVN Struck off in 1st Ever VN Disciplinary Hearing

molladog — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 12:32:11 GMT

Totally agree.

Re: RVN Struck off in 1st Ever VN Disciplinary Hearing

Alison Clare Hickman — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 11:30:43 GMT

Again, exactly!

If the practice was SO not up to scratch that this behaviour was allowed to continue un-checked (as in approved by virtue of not being stopped) then surely, as you say Sal, WHY were the vets / management not brought to task? Why just the veterinary nurse? It stinks of scape-goat BIG style to me... maybe the veterinary nurse was the ONLY person whom the RCVS could hang out to dry? As they say...the law is an ass...and from all I have read about this case, so are the RCVS / VN disciplinary procedures/commitee etc etc. My opinion. Am happy to be proven wrong in my assessment... anyone?

Re: RVN Struck off in 1st Ever VN Disciplinary Hearing

Sal the 1st — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 11:15:00 GMT

and going a bit further

The intimation of at least one of the statements was that it was this nurses policy to re use fluid bags and lines - sorry not buying that. Surely it would have been the practice policy for this to be happening because if it wasnt the practice could have said no we dont do that and it wouldnt have been done?

Or maybe we are not aware of all the facts?

Re: RVN Struck off in 1st Ever VN Disciplinary Hearing

Alison Clare Hickman — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 11:00:55 GMT

Exactly.

Re: RVN Struck off in 1st Ever VN Disciplinary Hearing

Sal the 1st — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 10:56:06 GMT

Coming back to this again - people that provided statements were aware of the re using of fluid bags and giving sets. How were these charged out to clients? Would it be possible that a bag of fluids and line that had previously been charged out to a client could then be charged out to another client? and if this was the case wouldn't that mean that anybody (and I mean anybody - vet or nurse within the practice) could have been guilty of exactly the same offence that got this nurse struck off?

Re: RVN Struck off in 1st Ever VN Disciplinary Hearing

Beholden — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 19:35:24 GMT

On our system you can easily change the initials under which any information is entered.

I usually do, if I enter something and then discover I'm logged as someone else. It looks no different then if it was originally entered by my login. Also, although a password is required to log in as a specific user, you can change ANY entry, to any other initials, with no password! You just click on it, and select the initials you want!

You have the option of logging your own initials with another staff members initials in brackets beside it, which I suppose you could use to indicate if something was done under the direction of another staff member. Rarely used though.

Re: RVN Struck off in 1st Ever VN Disciplinary Hearing

Joy Mant — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 19:10:36 GMT

Just read the news item... bit confusing!

Just wanted to know if for example; if a hospitalised animal is recieving medication does the computer record have to show it booked out under a vets name and NOT a RVN/other member of staff, if there is no formal prescription in the records??

Re: RVN Struck off in 1st Ever VN Disciplinary Hearing

Mark Hedberg — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:55:14 GMT

Hi Lisa!

My apologies, my mistake. Thanks for the correction!

Cheers,
Mark

Re: RVN Struck off in 1st Ever VN Disciplinary Hearing

Sal the 1st — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:06:15 GMT

Thanks for clarifying that - but I seem to remember reading somewhere that nurses removed from the register would be prevented from carrying out sched 3 procedures and I remember this because I questioned at the time that if this was the case would it result in all listed nurses eventually being prevented from carrying out sched 3, I think this was around the same time listed nurses were told they could no longer be clinical coaches because we weren't responsible OR maybe it was just another of the scare tactics circulated in the hope that listed nurses would join the register as a result. Anybody else remember the one telling listed nurses that they had to join the register by 2010 or else because the List would be no more? I do along with quite a few more.

Sorry if I am coming across as annoyed - I am annoyed as I feel Listed nurses are being bullied.

Re: RVN Struck off in 1st Ever VN Disciplinary Hearing

Lisa Brett — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 15:50:50 GMT

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]

Legally speaking, she could still work in nursing, just not as RVN - she certainly can't perform schedule III, but plenty of nursing is done by non-RVN staff and it's often at a similar practical standard (especially with listed nurses.) It'll be really tough to get a job, won't deny that...

[/quote]

Following your comment Mark, we have sought clarification from the RCVS for those Listed VN's that are out there with reference to Schedule 3 duties:

The RCVS states " The Schedule 3 dispensation hasn’t changed; it still applies to VNs “whose name is entered in the list of veterinary nurses … maintained by the College” . All Listed nurses therefore have this dispensation, regardless of why they are on the List rather than the regulated Register.

The Register is effectively a part of the List that is subject to regulation by means of a contract between the VN and the RCVS. A VN can therefore be removed from the regulated Register if he/she fails to abide by the terms of the contract i.e. fails to maintain expected standards of conduct. However he/she will revert to the unregulated list if so removed and can accordingly continue to undertake Schedule 3 work.

It’s widely recognised that this isn’t a very satisfactory arrangement, however the RCVS has no authority at present to remove a nurse from the unregulated List for any reason other than non-payment of fees. The only thing that will alter this is a change in legislation, which could close the List entirely and transfer all currently listed VNs to a regulated register.

The RCVS ensures that the List entry of any nurse who is there by virtue of being removed from the Register is clearly differentiated from that of VNs who have voluntarily remained on the List. The reasons for removal are also readily available in the public domain. Employers will doubtless be mindful of their own professional obligations if employing such a VN, regardless of his/her legal status"

We just wanted to put those Listed nurses minds at rest that they are still permitted to undertake Schedule III duties.

Re: RVN Struck off in 1st Ever VN Disciplinary Hearing

BengalcatRVN — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 13:54:31 GMT

Eek! Will def take more care re-logging on/off in future, I guess it never really crosses your mind, so many times I have been logged in and walked away from the computer, only to have the vet inform me "Well, looks like you spayed the cat as I put it on in your name" I am usually up on ensuring I inital stuff (better than I was!)

Yep, this is a wake-up call. I can't comment on the case in hand (not readall the notes), but it has opened my eyes. Have had clients ask me to change/put notes on/disp drugs without the vets ok etc and I have refused on the basis of losing my career.

Re: RVN Struck off in 1st Ever VN Disciplinary Hearing

danielle83 — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 18:23:43 GMT

Urrrm, there is some strange goings on with this case. If we put the dismissed case of administering pentobarb to one side.....

This just appears to the onlooker as a computing error... What could possibly have been gained by the RVN in question? I therefore agree with statement made re: severity of punishment.

I will be homest that as a result of this case I have scripted a memo to all of our nursing team re: reminding them to take care in logging on and off computers; ensuring they are logged in under themselves; are accurately and appropriately computing/completing documentation.

I feel a little dumbfounded by it all

Re: RVN Struck off in 1st Ever VN Disciplinary Hearing

Mark Hedberg — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 11:16:16 GMT

Also, Nazimek's case astonished me - it was a very similar judgement on what he could or couldn't know, and he got the benefit of the doubt.

Re: RVN Struck off in 1st Ever VN Disciplinary Hearing

Mark Hedberg — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 11:14:40 GMT

Re: RVN Struck off in 1st Ever VN Disciplinary Hearing

Sal the 1st — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 09:49:31 GMT

Yes I agree with you Mark. I am also not making comment on whether the nurse is innocent or guilty. If she was struck off purely on a dishonest entry .... . I do wonder if the disciplinary system as it is now is actually going to protect the pet owner and their pets and engender confidence in the veterinary profession or the opposite will happen and it will just make clients extra wary and increase the possibility of litigation. I can see this is going to turn very Big Brotherish in practice with vets spying on nurses and nurses spying on vets and I dont see this making for good practice working relations.

Looking back at some of the vet disciplinary cases (so far up to Dec 2010). Only looking at cases of false certification or dishonest entry

Smith - may 2012 - case dismissed

Nazimek - april 2012 - case dismissed

Manson - Jan 2012 - suspension

Wyn Lewis - july 2011 - suspension

Grecko - may 2011 - reprimand

Owen Thomas - march 2011 - suspension

Okano - dec 2010 - suspension

If this nurse was being judged purely on dishonest entry, in view of the 'punishments' meted out to veterinary surgeons for similar offences.... I dont know? maybe its just me? but the punishment for this nurse seems disproportionally harsh compared to those given to vets. Dont forget striking off vet or nurse results in a loss of livelihood

Re: RVN Struck off in 1st Ever VN Disciplinary Hearing

Mark Hedberg — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 09:17:56 GMT

The only charge they could make stick was the dishonest entry; and that was ONLY because her initials were next to an entry on a non-password protected system. She admitted entering clinical data and denied entering the injections; there's a world of difference between writing 'the dog died" and entering chargeable items.

I do not feel the case was proved adequately. Please note that I don't make any claims whether the nurse is innocent or guilty; I am simply not happy with the standard of proof.

Circumstantial evidence is a tricky thing; if one considers that the vets were the only one with financial motive to add on chargeable items, and the practice commonly reused partial bags of saline, and no password protection on the computer systems...well, it could have been a fine line between the nurse being up on charges and the vet being up on charges.

http://www.rcvs.org.uk/complaints/disciplinary-hearings/

Re: RVN Struck off in 1st Ever VN Disciplinary Hearing

Sal the 1st — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 20:23:06 GMT

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]

http://www.vetnurse.co.uk/blogs/veterinary_news/archive/2013/01/15/138615.aspx

Our Dogs covered this in their recent edition; seemed a very confusing case!

[/quote]

very confusing case - about as clear as mud having read the whole lot. The one thing I do note from it all is that there have been a lot of departures within the practice in the last year.It all sounds a bit odd. But never mind the way things are her name will still remain on the list along with all the rest of us listed nurses who have done no wrong but if the list becomes synonymous with struck off nurses I suppose that makes all of the listed nurses 'guilty by association'

I know I wouldnt have liked to be the person asking the owner to dig up their pet some months after burial for tissue retrieval - especially after the owner submitted statement in favour of the nurse.

I should think this will be the first of many cases - the RCVS are sure to be flexing their muscles.

Re: RVN Struck off in 1st Ever VN Disciplinary Hearing

Ariana Gooderham — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:24:13 GMT

She knew she was doing wrong and admitted it! In addition, she was a lecturer in Veterinary nursing, quite shocking!

Seems a shame to loose an RVN but protecting the title and maintaining public confidence is essential to see our profession grow.

Re: RVN Struck off in 1st Ever VN Disciplinary Hearing

F1chick — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:54:58 GMT

First ones were always going to be struck off IMO, wield their power, make an example......I am not saying they weren't right in their decision, but it was always going to be heavy

Re: RVN Struck off in 1st Ever VN Disciplinary Hearing

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:35:05 GMT

No, looks like they are saying that someone put the animal to sleep, but there was not enough evidence to prove that it was Ms Nicholl.

However, she was found guilty of falsifying the records of four other injections.

Re: RVN Struck off in 1st Ever VN Disciplinary Hearing

F1chick — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:27:09 GMT

So are they saying she PTS a dog without vet sayso/consent? I'm confused!