Southampton vet not guilty of misconduct

RE: Southampton vet not guilty of misconduct

Carla — Wed, 18 Dec 2013 10:04:28 GMT

Just to add...the dog was discharged 3 days later with a guarded prognosis!?!?! Why was he discharged in first instance despite clearly been unwell? (perhaps the owner started kicking up a fuss about vet bill for gdv sx and intensive care hosp for 3days?) Where the dog had been hospitalised during them 3 days? (clearly not at Vets now otherwise there would be arecord on thr computer...again too unwell to be transported or money saving keeping the dog at the practice rather than use ooh provider) why when the owner contacted the practice only to be referred straight to ooh service the dog's hx hasn't been faxed through? (As far as I know when vey refers to ooh there's a vet to vet or nurse handover case to avoid this. Has actually the owner phoned and spoke to regular vet or just turned up at ooh door cause regular vet was closed??? If I have a critical case during the day I do fax hx to ooh just in case owners turn up). Too easy try to blame ooh vet and maybe try to make some money out of it, still think it should have not go to DC.

RE: Southampton vet not guilty of misconduct

Andy Elliott — Mon, 16 Dec 2013 22:27:48 GMT

With hind-sight I'm sure Mr. G. regretted discharging the dog in the morning but it sounds like at all times he had the best interests of the dog at heart and very harsh that this went as far as DC. Watch your back folks!

RE: Southampton vet not guilty of misconduct

Carla — Mon, 16 Dec 2013 09:19:00 GMT

Just read the article and I have actually to agree with Francisco. Very easily and too much quickly vets get accused and undergo stressful disciplinary. Owners are constantly molly cuddled, constantly moaning at the price of vey services and never bear responsibility for their own decisions. Why a vet with no clinical information and no possibility to perform any further test, that am sure has had to argue for an hour before been granted permission to admit the dog and administer minimum care(fluids abs and pain relief) to try to make the dog comfy has to be treated this way???

RE: Southampton vet not guilty of misconduct

Francisco Gomez — Sat, 14 Dec 2013 14:14:31 GMT

Having only read this article, it does sounds like the owner's frustration was dicharged on the vet. How can you accused someone if you didn't give him the chance to properly 'know' about the case? (No previous history rather than owners interpretation and no option to perform diagnostics). Shouldn't even needed to go to DC IMO...

RE: Southampton vet not guilty of misconduct

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sat, 14 Dec 2013 11:00:46 GMT

If the owners didn't give permission for Mr Gillams to carry out diagnostic tests, then they have to bear SOME responsibility. At the same time, I can not reconcile this judgement with the requirement in the G to PC for the Veterinary surgeon to be responsible for transport between practices. This was one of my reasons for leaving Vets Now

Wynne