Manitoba nursing panel sets return conditions after wrong-site wound care

A Manitoba nursing discipline panel has ordered Kamaljeet Kaur Dherdi to pay $8,000 in costs before seeking reinstatement, complete remedial education before a certificate of practice can be restored, and practise under restrictions if reinstated after admitting to providing wound care to the wrong part of a resident’s body.

In reasons dated August 19, 2026, an Inquiry Committee panel of the College of Registered Nurses of Manitoba accepted a joint proposal for a monitored return to practice. The panel, chaired by Anne-Marie Brown, rejected fatigue as a justification for the care provided but concluded that the proposed courses and restrictions adequately protected the public.

Dherdi voluntarily surrendered the certificate of practice on March 17, 2025. The August order does not impose a new fixed-term suspension or revoke the certificate. Instead, it sets requirements governing an application to return and the nursing practice that could follow successful reinstatement.

Admission followed a wound-care error

At the June 2, 2026 hearing, Dherdi pleaded guilty to providing wound care to the wrong body site on or about March 6, 2025. Before accepting the plea, the panel satisfied itself that it was voluntary and that Dherdi understood the admission, the loss of the right to contest the allegations, and the panel’s responsibility to decide the sanction.

The facts presented to the panel showed that Dherdi had received wound-care training and had previously changed the same resident’s dressing on at least two occasions. After removing the existing dressing, Dherdi treated a different site, leaving the wound without the required care. The wound remained undressed for approximately five hours, increasing the risk of infection.

The panel treated the error as a serious failure of care and attention. It emphasized Dherdi’s familiarity with the resident’s care and said Dherdi appeared to have ignored the resident’s expressed concerns about how the treatment felt. The decision identifies an increased infection risk; it does not establish that an infection occurred.

The panel found professional misconduct, breaches of the Regulated Health Professions Act, a practice direction, a standard of practice and the code of ethics, and a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment in professional practice. The standards discussed in the reasons address assessment, clinical reasoning, safe care, communication and accountability for errors.

Initial denial weighed against later acceptance

Counsel for the Complaints Investigation Committee stressed the seriousness of the error and Dherdi’s initial denial of responsibility. The panel counted that denial as aggravating, noting that Dherdi had initially suggested another provider must have carried out the dressing change despite evidence of the error.

Dherdi’s counsel said the initial reluctance to accept responsibility reflected disbelief and an absence of independent recollection. Counsel said Dherdi now accepted the error and speculated that fatigue and distraction had contributed to a significant lapse of attention. Those were submissions, not findings establishing what caused the error.

On mitigation, the panel recognized that Dherdi had no previous discipline or complaints history, ultimately apologized, cooperated with the College’s investigation and pleaded guilty, avoiding the time and expense of a contested hearing.

Both sides supported a remediation-based disposition. The investigation committee’s counsel described ongoing monitoring and restrictive conditions as a means of protecting the public and deterring further misconduct. Dherdi’s counsel asked the panel to defer to the joint recommendation, arguing that it met those objectives.

Why the joint proposal passed the public-interest test

The panel identified protection of the public as the central purpose of professional discipline. Drawing on authorities discussed in the reasons, it considered deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation, public confidence in professional oversight and consistency with sanctions in other cases.

The parties relied on the College’s earlier Marius decision for the principle that a joint penalty recommendation should be rejected only if it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or otherwise be contrary to the public interest. The panel applied that public-interest test rather than treating the agreement as automatically binding.

It unequivocally rejected any suggestion that fatigue justified the deficient care. Nevertheless, it found sufficient protection in the required coursework and practice conditions to accept the joint recommendation. The panel concluded that the disposition would deter other registered nurses and reassure the public that professional standards were being enforced.

Costs and courses come before reinstatement

The corrected order, also dated August 19, 2026, separates two preconditions. Dherdi must pay $8,000 in costs before seeking reinstatement with the College. Before the certificate of practice is reinstated, Dherdi must provide proof of completing four specified courses at their own expense.

Three courses are through John Collins Consulting: Client Assessment in Nursing, Critical Thinking in Nursing and Professionalism in Nursing. The fourth is UVIC’s Wound Management for Health Professionals. The order also directs publication of the decision on the College’s website under subsection 129(1) of the Act.

Restrictions extend through verified practice hours

Following successful reinstatement, the order is to be monitored by the Compliance Monitor and remain in effect until Dherdi completes 2,015 hours of verified independent RN practice. Qualifying practice begins only after successful completion of any necessary orientation, site-specific training or return-to-work program. The condition continues until employer verification of the completed hours is received.

The term independent RN practice does not authorize working alone. Another RN must be present in the practice area at all times. Dherdi may not work for a health-care staffing agency, be self-employed, take float-pool employment or float between units in a facility.

Dherdi must maintain one consistent employer rather than multiple RN employers and may not hold supervisory responsibilities. The prohibition includes management, clinical resource nurse, educator or instructor, and charge nurse roles, as well as oversight of student nurses, preceptees or graduate nurses.

By email on the 15th of each month, Dherdi must tell the Professional Conduct Compliance Monitor how many shifts were worked since the last update and give the dates of employer meetings that resulted in verbal coaching, remediation or disciplinary intervention. Monthly RN Practice Reports must also be submitted for the duration of the order.

The reasons and corrected order do not establish that reinstatement has occurred or that the costs, courses and practice-hour requirements have been completed.