Rossitsa Petkova

Introduction

Rossitsa Petkova is a registered nurse who had worked at Castleford House Nursing Home, a dementia care facility in Tutshill near Chepstow, Gloucestershire, close to the border with Wales, for around 15 years. In September 2026, a Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) fitness to practise panel struck her off the UK nursing register after finding eight misconduct allegations proven, all relating to her conduct towards elderly residents at the home between January and October 2023. The finding that drew the most attention concerned a birthday cake: the panel found that Petkova had said a resident with dementia did not need one because he would not know it was his birthday.

Background Information

Castleford House Nursing Home sits in Tutshill, near Chepstow, and cares for residents with dementia. Petkova had worked there as a registered nurse for more than a decade; the Monmouthshire Beacon put her tenure at the home at 15 years. The residents at the centre of the case were described by the NMC panel as elderly and vulnerable. The case arose from incidents at the home between January and October 2023, and from complaints by colleagues that Petkova herself dismissed as “pointless and childish”. No criminal process was ever involved; the matter was heard as a regulatory fitness to practise case.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Adjudicated vs. alleged. The eight misconduct findings described below were adjudicated and found proven by a Nursing and Midwifery Council fitness to practise panel, with the ruling publicized on 8 September 2026; they are regulatory findings of an NMC panel and a matter of tribunal record. They are not criminal convictions, and Petkova was never criminally charged or tried. Petkova denied the allegations throughout; her denials, and her claim that colleagues made “pointless and childish complaints” about her, were noted by the panel but did not prevent it from finding the allegations proven. Six other charges against her were dismissed.

The best-reported incident involved a birthday cake. Kitchen assistant Melanie Corfield gave a statement to the panel saying staff had made a cake for a male resident, as normally happened, and that she asked Petkova what to do with it while the resident was in bed. “She told me that I have to remember he doesn’t have capacity, that he wouldn’t even know it was his birthday and to pretty much not make a big thing of it,” Corfield said. She replied that “everybody deserves a birthday, dementia or not, so we will get one of the girls to take it up,” and said Petkova answered: “Or if not, we can eat the cake.” Petkova denied making the comments.

Among the other allegations the panel found proven were that Petkova shouted at residents to “shut up”; told one resident that if they did not eat their dinner, their daughter would not be able to visit them; told another resident it was their own fault when they dropped a beaker on the floor; told a third she would put them on the floor; and shouted at a colleague for giving a resident marmalade on toast for breakfast.

The panel also found proven that Petkova pushed a woman with dementia back into an armchair. Kitchen assistant Ann Baker told the NMC she heard Petkova shouting at the resident — “sit down, stop moving around, sit in your chair, why are you up and moving?” — and saw her use force on the frail woman, pushing her shoulders back into the chair to make her sit down. Baker said the resident “looked stunned” and knew something had happened but did not know what or why. Petkova denied all the allegations, and her legal representative told the hearing there had been “inherent bias” in the proceedings alongside “fraud, malice, and unreliable evidence”, applying for the panel to recuse itself. The three members refused the application.

In its judgement, the panel said Petkova had displayed a “reprehensible and dismissive attitude” towards the NMC as regulator, had attempted to place the blame on others, and had been disparaging towards junior colleagues. It found she had shown a “deep-seated attitude that is entrenched and therefore more difficult to remediate” and had provided no evidence of insight, remorse or strengthening of practice. Her actions were “significant departures from the standards expected of a registered nurse” and were “fundamentally incompatible with her remaining on the register”.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The ruling was reported by the BBC, The Independent and the Monmouthshire Beacon in September 2026, with the birthday-cake exchange in the headlines. The panel said the public expect their family members to be well cared for if they need to enter a residential care home, and that Petkova’s “abuse and wide-ranging disregard for the wellbeing of vulnerable patients in her care” would fundamentally damage public confidence in the profession. It determined that the appropriate and proportionate sanction was a striking-off order, made “to mark the importance of maintaining public confidence in the profession and to send to the public and the profession a clear message about the standard of behaviour required of a registered nurse”. The panel said the ban was necessary for the safety of the public.

Current Status

As of the ruling publicized on 8 September 2026, Petkova is struck off the NMC register and is banned from the profession. She retains the right to submit an appeal against the decision; the reporting contains no indication that she has done so. The case was regulatory, not criminal, and no criminal charge or conviction arose from it.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The striking-off order ends Petkova’s career as a registered nurse in the United Kingdom. The panel’s findings — that her dismissive attitude towards clinical and caring concerns was deep-seated and entrenched, and that she showed no insight, remorse or strengthening of practice — were central to its conclusion that her conduct was more difficult to remediate and incompatible with her remaining on the register. Her denial of the allegations and her argument that colleagues’ complaints were “pointless and childish” were rejected by the panel, as was her representative’s claim that the hearing was biased. The only route back identified in the reporting is an appeal, which remains available to her.