Mr Watkinson

Re: Mr Watkinson

Richard Carter — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:57:11 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Richard

Totally unrealistic, unless drug and equipment manufacturers (and also emplyed veterinary surgeons and nurses ) also adjust downwards in poorer areas I'm not sure if the poorer areas is a valid point they are normally classified on the basis of per capita income, but if this is artificially reduced by high unemployment, and there is a PDSA branch then unemployed peoples pets don't come to private practices Also housing costs are less so disposable income may actually be higher than in more obviously affluent areas

The bit about insurence companies adjusting for areas totally baffles me Insurence is very cheap for what it can cover, and means that everyone who can afford a pet should be able to afford proper veterinary fees

Wynne

[/quote]

Thanks Wynne - what I am trying to point out is that stories as I related give ammunition to the Mr Watkinson's of this world regardless of whether there is truth or not or insurance or not. We must keep out house in order and one of these is to not be seen too ready to take advantage of a distressing situation for obvious financial gain

Re: Mr Watkinson

Clive Ansell — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:50:01 GMT

[quote user="Laurence Webb"]

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]This is nonsense, and I fail to see what the actual complaint is. I certainly would not waste too much of my valuable professional time with it.[/quote]

One of the things that you can do with your valuable professional time is to help a distressed owner get through a traumatic episode. Often people are looking for somewhere to direct their anger and the vet may be the person in the firing line just because they are available. They probably feel guilty that they didn't put the cat to sleep immediately but equally, if you had then they'd probably feel just as guilty that they hadn't tried to stabilise it before making a decision.

A well handled complaint can turn an angry customer into a well bonded client. If you take the time to explain to them what was done for their animal you can change them from someone telling everyone they meet about the money grabbing uncaring vet to one of your best advocates. The fact that they were undercharged is just the icing on the cake.

As well as helping you, handling complaints well has the happy side effect of helping owners. Good client relations is good for business.

[/quote]

I can agree up to a point that people get upset and want to vent their anger, but accusing a practice of deliberately advising treatment just to make money is not really a complaint and, without supporting evidence to the contrary, is more a malicious (possibly libellous) allegation of professional misconduct which could be potentially serious resulting in a veterinary surgeon being removed from the RCVS register.

I think the point of good client relations and building bridges has passed, how could a professional relationship of mutual trust be present following such an allegation? I think I would seek advice from the RCVS and/or my solicitor before replying.

Re: Mr Watkinson

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:57:21 GMT

Richard

Wynne

Re: Mr Watkinson

Clive Ansell — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:56:03 GMT

It is of course difficult to comment without knowing the precise details of the case, but £1200 is a lot of money. It depends on what was done of course, If the dog was hospitalised for 48 hours, had IVFT, bloods, 02, multiple rads, and many hours of surgery time then £1200 is not far off the mark.

I have done many locums in OOH centres, and an RTA with superficial injuries requiring simple skin only sutures would be - ball park, depending on time taken etc about £300 - £500. Treatment options and costs should have been discussed at the onset.

Some OOH providers employ staff on a commission basis, and it could be argued that this could increase bills ?

Re: Mr Watkinson

Richard Carter — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:38:23 GMT

It may be a problem that either we or the insurance companies don't have a guide price list adjusted for regions - have just had feedback from a collegue who did a weekend in a not particularly affluent part of the country for a well known OOH provider who was quite depressed following the treatment of a fairly standard daytime RTA - did incl GA, xray and stitch up supf wounds - bill > £1200 and he then had to face the clients to discharge the dog. Now there will be plenty out there who feel entirely justified about this sort of price BUT it feeds back into the pubs, parents meetings, clubs etc and we as a profession are going to loose more clients - from those who don't bother with pet ownership in the first place to those who don't replace when natural attrition takes place. Then it doesn't matter how qualified you are, how much time you want off or what piece of equipment you had your eye on. Forget about global warming - the vet profession as we know it is heading for extinction if we carry on like this. And yes it is we - even if you are the caring vet who takes in strays, gives discounts to OAPs and charities etc

Re: Mr Watkinson

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:32:25 GMT

The genuinely distressed who can't take anything in are always a challenge

Wynne

Re: Mr Watkinson

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:32:00 GMT

[quote user="i am ed"], a goad such as, 'go on, complain', may well be construed as being rude [/quote]

Sorry, what I meant in my hasty reply, was to point out that if they truly felt they had something to complain about there was an effective RCVS complaints mechanism and to tell them how to contact the RCVS.

A long(ish) detailed reply certainly, not nasty but not grovelling either. Firm.

Re: Mr Watkinson

salome2001 — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 23:28:50 GMT

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]

( And, I guess the fact that a large monopolistic company like Tesco that makes Billions in profits is ok???)

[/quote]

Touche!!!

Re: Mr Watkinson

Laurence Webb — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 23:01:45 GMT

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]This is nonsense, and I fail to see what the actual complaint is. I certainly would not waste too much of my valuable professional time with it.[/quote]

As well as helping you, handling complaints well has the happy side effect of helping owners. Good client relations is good for business.

Re: Mr Watkinson

Hanna Bennett — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:01:24 GMT

Always a difficult situation, have struggled on a couple of occasions with owners in this situation - one i remember most strongly was a dog that had argued with a train. Came in with some pretty severe degloving injuries, particularly round the back end, shocked and screaming. Thought i'd explained pretty well to the owner the importance of stabilising the dog and treating the life threatening issues, then assessing the injuries and treating as possible once stable. Like you, after 24 hours the dog was stable enough to sedate enough to assess further and pelvis was a complete mess so opted to euthanase. Owner was devastated, more so as he felt that if it was that bad we should have just euthanased on initial presentation. He was just so traumatised by the whole experience of seeing his dog run over by the train that he took in nothing i said to him at the time of initial presentation. Nice chap, not meaning to cause a problem but had basically written his dog off before reaching us, then felt i'd given him false hope by not euthanasing immediately, had gone home thinking the dog would come out the other side. Took a long time to make him or me feel that the situation was sorted.

It's difficult dealing with owners who have no real concept of how we have to focus on saving the animals life in order to assess it enough to decide that it needs euthanasing. Still don't have any tips for how to avoid this happening again.

Re: Mr Watkinson

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 15:01:00 GMT

I agree with Martin and i am ed This is one where it might be a good idea to ask VDS (assuming you're insured wuth them ) to cast a look at your reply b4 posting

Wynne

Re: Mr Watkinson

Clive Ansell — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:32:39 GMT

This is nonsense, and I fail to see what the actual complaint is. I certainly would not waste too much of my valuable professional time with it.

An RTA injured car presented; treatment options, cost and prognosis were discussed on a step by step basis, and the client made THEIR choice for PTS and paid for the service provided.

I would reply, express sympathy at their loss and just state the above briefly including the options that were available. If they still feel there is an issue of professional misconduct then they need to direct it to the RCVS

Re: Mr Watkinson

Martin Jones — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 09:21:54 GMT

With ed on this one, and bravo Jane for having the empathy to look at things from the client's point of view. They were sitting at home overnight worrying, praying, pacing the floors, doing whatever it is that owners do when we've got their pets in for make-or-break treatment. And then their cat was euthanased. It's easy to understand why they might think that the vets were just making sure that they got 24 hours of fees out of the case before letting it go, especially when they've read that this is so - and from no less an authority than a vet.

I've made this point elsewhere, but I believe that all Matthew has done is to give us a bit of a headache by emboldening a lot of dissatisfied people, simply by telling them what they already believed to be true.

We might have a different interpretation of Jane's plight, but it's my understanding that most complaints reaching the RCVS are largely to do with lack of communication.

Jane, your integrity shines through on this one. If you reply to the owners in the same spirit - and it wouldn't be inappropriate to point out that in view of the outcome, you didn't charge for a few things - then I'm sure that they'll accept your explanation. They won't be happy - the entire experience has caused them to lose their pet - but it will take the heat out of their anger at you.

Martin

Re: Mr Watkinson

Edward Jones — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:14:56 GMT

"Then invite them to complain about you to the RCVS." oh so very tempting, but probably not constructive in the long term unfortunately. I'd go for a long, empathetic reply explaining in detail the reasoning behind the decision making and the options that were offered.

In order of importance: Firstly, even an unfair complaint against you is likely to be disproportionately stressful. Secondly, it's likely that the complainant will agree with your reply, given time to assess the situation objectively. Thirdly, a full, polite and reasonable reply will stand you in very good stead in the face of a complaint. Fourthly, a goad such as, 'go on, complain', may well be construed as being rude to a client and therefore be held as professional misconduct.

Re: Mr Watkinson

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 22:49:06 GMT

Repeat the whole history to them and finish with what you wrote to us:

[quote user="Jane Dunnett"]

My first reaction is to be rather angry at this rather personal attack on the moral and professional integrity of my staff and colleagues. However, on further reflection I can understand how the owners have been convinced by Mr Watkinson and the Daily Mail that in their time of distress and grief they cannot trust the professionals they come to for help. This conviction that we were only out to fleece them must have made the whole episode even more distressing for these owners.

Bravo Mr Watkinson.

[/quote]

Then invite them to complain about you to the RCVS.

This is absolutely rotten for you, Jane, but take comfort there are a lot of paranoid weirdos out in the animal-owning world and this sort of thing just brings them out of the woodwork.They may be hoping to get some money out of you.

If you are feeling brave, why not stick their letter up in your waiting room with your reply beside it?

Re: Mr Watkinson

jd2008 — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:24:07 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]t takes a certain sort of person who is brazen enough to come in and accuse someone of being a crook (that is effectively what they would be saying about you if they came into your practice brandishing the Daily Mail article).[/quote]

Well, it's just happened to me (or rather my colleagues)

Long story shortened: 1.5 yr old cat presented post RTA last weekend. In shock, obvious pelvic trauma. Owners given options of stabilise and reassess injuries once stable or PTS. Owners opt to stabilise, Next day the cat is out of shock and further assessed. Pelvic fracture, abdominal wall rupture with herniated bladder. Bladder and bowel funtion not yet established but pelvic limb and perineal neuro all good. Owners offered surgical repair or PTS on the understanding that we are unsure about continence and that may take weeks to recover, if at all, if absent. Owners opt PTS. Cat duly PTS swiftly, owners pay.

Fast forward to yesterday. We receive a letter accusing us of advising surgery purely to make money. I quote "the staff did not take into consideration that to put a cat through a prolonged, painful and dbilitating course of treatment would be the utmost cruelty itself. We felt the attitude of the staff was to try and provide as much treatment as possible, thereby making more money. This issue was recently highlighted in the Daily Mail."

The irony is that one of the vets involved is renowned for under-charging and having looked at the records a number of costs have not been billed including the euth and crem!

Bravo Mr Watkinson.

Jane

P.S. Still wondering how I should reply to their letter. Any suggestions are welcome !

Re: Mr Watkinson

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:45:23 GMT

People like that make me glad I am self-employed and single-handed. If they said something like that to my face I might enquire what they thought gave them the right to be so rude, and indicate that the pet's health is best served in an atmosphere of mutual trust and confidence, so they might care to seek veterinary assistance elsewhere in future. My reception staff also understand that they need not tolerate rudeness.

Re: Mr Watkinson

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:38:31 GMT

Don't people like that make you feel like spitting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wynne

Re: Mr Watkinson

Clive Ansell — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:24:17 GMT

I have had 2 examples of the publics' perception of us this week.

1) This morning an owner/breeder of Afghans. She is taking one of her stud dogs to Germany for a cardiac exam/test {?}, (even though this dog is only 3 years old has a significant murmur and there is history of cardiomyopathy in the breed line) where it can be carried out for 120 euros, as opposed to £200 here. I pointed out that the cost of travel etc would outway the benefit surely. She said she would still prefer to travel as she objects to our "extortionate fees"

2) I overheard a conversation at reception where a woman said she would rather buy frontline at Tesco's even if it was more expensive as she did not see why she should "support the vet's Porsche fund" (I drive a Peugeot 207) ( And, I guess the fact that a large monopolistic company like Tesco that makes Billions in profits is ok???)

Re: Mr Watkinson

Arlo Guthrie — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:21:28 GMT

[quote user="i am ed"]I've not had any member of the public mention the man yet. [/quote]

It takes a certain sort of person who is brazen enough to come in and accuse someone of being a crook (that is effectively what they would be saying about you if they came into your practice brandishing the Daily Mail article).

I would imagine that the main effect of bad publicity is to have sown the seeds of doubt amongst a far larger number of people who won't actually say anything.

Hanna's client (above) might have been harbouring those thoughts for some time before actually saying anything.

Re: Mr Watkinson

Julian Earl — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 08:42:00 GMT

[quote user="Hanna Bennett"]

... and she said ' yes, i know all you vets are after is money..." [/quote]

So we're just like everybody else then?

Except we're not. I have become a bit exasparated over the years with inane comments such as the one quoted here and usually mention the costs of running a practice. They are not always convinced though. Perhaps I should retire to my villa in the south of France and leave it all behind! Ho. Ho.

Re: Mr Watkinson

Hanna Bennett — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:39:39 GMT

had an odd conversation with a client a few weeks ago, before Mr Watkinson showed up admittedly, so nothing to do with him, but regular client who always asks to see me and does what we ask, pays on time etc, always listens, thought she was with us if you know what i mean. Brought in her Scottie bitch for a booster, who she got as a rescue some years ago now, which came to her in an awful state, otitis so chronic she'd take your fingers off if you went within a foot of her head - typical Scottie you may think, but now you can do anything do her - and chatting about how much better she is now compared to when i first met her, and she said ' yes, i know all you vets are after is money but for once i believe you were truly upset about the state of her ears, weren't you'. And this is a client i know well, having treated her previous dog for diabetes and cushings for a few years. Scary.

Re: Mr Watkinson

Edward Jones — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:23:47 GMT

I've not had any member of the public mention the man yet. If he was going to be of any importance I would expect some comments from clients. I certainly had some good discussions with clients after ITV's 'Pets Undercover' episode. All of my clients saw through the excessive hype around it all.

I find it odd that he wants to be taken seriously yet still went to the Daily Wail Mail. He's a flash in the pan and anyone with sense will see through him.

My worry-o-meter is currently set at zero about this

Re: Mr Watkinson

Gillian Mostyn — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:54:14 GMT

I do know what David means though. It's not about bad-mouthing other vets - noone would do that without extremely good justification. But I've had quite a few clients say that they're glad they CAN trust us - and that we aren't one of the con merchants. Although I do reiterate with them that most vets are honest, it is nice to build the client relationship in that way.

Re: Mr Watkinson

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:23:14 GMT

David I would be reluctant to do that Whether it is your intention or not, the public will read it as implying that everyone else in the area is dishonest. At the end of the day , the loss of trust between colleaugues in neighbouring practices will end up damaging everyone

Wynne