Skip to main content

Whieldon, Shannon, RN

Discipline order

Oct 3, 2019

UPDATE​​: Oct 27, 2023

​A panel of the Discipline Committee (the "Panel") of the British Columbia College of Nursing Professionals (the "College" or "BCCNP") conducted a hearing to determine, pursuant to section 39 of the Health Professions Act, RSBC 1996, c.183 (the "Act" or the "HPA"), whether Shannon Whieldon, registered nurse, failed to comply with the Act, whether she failed to comply with a standard imposed under the Act, and whether she committed professional misconduct or unprofessional conduct.

The Panel found that the Registrant practised incompetently and did not meet BCCNP standards, pursuant to s. 39(1)(b)(d) of the Act:


by failing to administer and manage infusions of the medication Oxytocin appropriately according to BCCNP standards and hospital protocol (Citation 1(a)(i), (g)(i), (h)(i));


by failing to accurately interpret external electronic fetal heart monitor strips (Citation 1(a)(ii));


by failing to escalate care when faced with obvious signs and symptoms of a seizure in an infant (Citation 1(c));


by failing to take appropriate steps when a dose of Erythromycin was not documented as given to an infant, rather, the Registrant documented the parent made an informed refusal for the administration of that drug, when in fact, the parent had not (Citation 1(f));


by failing to follow standards and policies related to appropriate documentation (Citation 1(a)(iv), (d), (g)(ii), (h)(iii)); and


by failing to obtain a discharge order prior to discharging a patient home (Citation 1(j).

The Panel found that the Registrant committed professional misconduct, pursuant to section 39(1)(c) of the Act, when she failed to administer Erythromycin ointment to an infant, advised the parent that it was too late for the ointment to be given, failed to escalate the issue to her charge nurse or responsible physician, and falsified a patient record to indicate that an informed refusal had taken place, when she had not performed an informed refusal process and did not obtain the parent's informed refusal. The Panel found that this conduct would be considered disgraceful by other members of the profession (Citation 1(f)).

The full decision of the Panel can be found here.

The Panel will deliberate on the appropriate penalty and costs. That determination will be made public when final.

Inquiry should be directed to