Complaint from Dawson Creek hospital among narcotics handling complaints leading to suspension for B.C. nurse 

DAWSON CREEK, B.C. — A B.C. nurse has had their licence suspended following numerous complaints around narcotic handling, administration and documentation, including one complaint from Dawson Creek. 

According to a notice from the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives (BCCNM), a Summary Protection Order (SPO) was made by the registrar on June 23 regarding registered nurse Mark Wade, referred to in the SPO as “the respondent.”  

The BCCNM said four complaints were received regarding the respondent, including one which occurred at the Dawson Creek and District Hospital. 

The BCCNM also said the Summary Protection Order was made at the direction of the Investigation Committee. 

The BCCNM has released information about several complaints to protect the public from harm.

On Feb. 17, the college received a complaint from the manager of clinical operations at Interior Health’s Dr. Helmcken Memorial Hospital in Clearwater.  

According to the BCCNM, the first complaint raises concerns regarding the narcotic handling practices of the respondent while contracted at the hospital. 

A second complaint, dated March 3, came from the director of care at the Dawson Creek and District Hospital.

The complaint raises concerns from Dec. 1 to 25, 2025, regarding incomplete documentation of care, various practice shortcomings and a specific concern regarding the administration and documentation of narcotics, as well as leaving without permission for 45 minutes while on shift. 

Dated March 31, a third complaint from the emergency co-ordinator at Abbotsford Regional Hospital raises concerns about narcotic administration and documentation in September 2025.

On April 18, the manager of clinical operations for the Emergency Department at Burnaby Hospital submitted a fourth complaint.

“The complaint raises concerns regarding an ongoing narcotic diversion investigation into the respondent while they were contracted to work at the Burnaby Hospital emergency room (ER),” the BCCNM said. 

Subsequently, the complainant filed a Discrepancy Investigation Report, which covers March 2 to April 9 and details several instances, including: 

• Removal of hydromorphone lacking the corresponding Medication Administration Record (MAR).
• Administration documentation inconsistent with the removed quantity. 
• Administering injectable hydromorphone without a valid provider order.
• Delayed or incomplete waste documentation.
• Multiple withdrawals occurring in short timeframes.

According to the BCCNM, the Investigation Committee has a “test” to determine whether to direct a SPO. 

The test considers four criteria. Is there a prima facie case based on allegations and any evidence to date? Is there a significant risk of harm? A SPO should only contain provisions necessary to address the risk; in other words should be minimally impairing for the respondent, and the impact on the respondent must be equal to the risk. 

Prima facie means “on first impression,” according to the BCCNM. “In law, it denotes evidence that, unless rebutted, would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact.” 

The BCCNM said the panel determined that the “prima facie” test was met.

“The College received four complaints from four employers in short succession, all raising similar concerns regarding narcotic-handling over a period of seven to eight months.” 

According to the BCCNM, two of the four complaints included additional supporting documentation.

The BCCNM said the “panel” decided the threshold of significant risk of harm requiring interim action by the regulator to protect patients, colleagues and the public while an investigation unfolds was met.

The respondent will be suspended until the registrar orders the disposal of the complaints, the discipline committee issues an order under section 191 of the Health Professions Act or the SPO is varied or terminated. 

The full Summary Protection Order is available on the BCCNM website.