The charges related to the unexpected death of a cat called Hope during an operation to explore a growth in her mouth, and Dr Dantas-Holmes' subsequent communication with the animal's owners.
Dr Dantas-Holmes accepted that Hope’s death was most likely due to her failing to flush fluid through the giving set attached to an intravenous drip, leaving air in the tubing and causing some air to enter Hope’s bloodstream when the cannula was placed and the giving set’s control opened.
The first set of charges related to Dr Dantas-Holmes’ initial phone call to Hope’s owners ten minutes after Hope’s death, in which she said that Hope had died because of a reaction to anaesthetic drugs. Dr Dantas-Holmes failed to mention that the cause of death was still to be determined and failed to mention that a likely cause was in fact an air embolism and/or a complication relating to the intravenous drip.
Following her initial phone call to the owners Dr Dantas-Holmes viewed CCTV of her actions.
The owners then came into the practice later in the day, and the communications during that time constitute the second set of charges: that, during this meeting, Dr Dantas-Holmes didn’t correct her earlier statements about the cause of Hope’s death, and that she didn’t mention that there was an ongoing investigation or that a likely cause of death was an air embolism and/or complication.
The third set of charges related to Dr Dantas-Holmes’ subsequent clinical records, in which it was alleged that she failed to include references to the findings on review of the CCTV footage of Hope’s death, and the possibility of an air embolism and/or complication relating to the intravenous drip.
The fourth and final set of charges were that her conduct was misleading, and/or dishonest.
With regard to the first set of charges, the Committee found that Dr Dantas-Holmes did tell the owners that Hope died because of a reaction to the drugs, but that given the short nature of the phone call to the owners and the distressing circumstances there was no duty to discuss the investigation, or to mention the likely cause being an air embolism.
Concerning the communications with the owners when they came to the practice, the Committee found that Dr Dantas-Holmes did fail to mention that anaesthetic drugs might not have been the cause, and that she also failed to mention the investigation. Dr Dantas-Holmes had agreed with the Practice Manager, however, that she would not discuss the possibility of an air embolism or complication, and so that charge was not found proved.
On consideration of whether Dr Dantas-Holmes had failed to include relevant findings in the clinical reports, the Committee found both charges proved, and, in relation to the final set of charges, the Committee found that while Dr Dantas-Holmes had misled Hope’s owners, it was unintentional, and she had not been dishonest.
Ultimately, the Committee found Dr Dantas Holmes not guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The findings of this Committee demonstrate that there were errors and omissions in communications with the owners. When communicating with a client it is the professional’s responsibility to ensure that the client has heard and understood what has been said. The importance of good and effective communication is particularly important when an unforeseen and shocking event occurs such as it did in this case.
"The particular circumstances of this case demonstrate how important it is to communicate effectively and the need for the veterinary surgeon to ensure that their clinical records for which they are wholly responsible, are complete.
"The Committee concluded that its findings demonstrated a departure from professional standards but that the falling short was not so grave as to amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vets.