It shouldn't happen at a vets.

Shoshannah

Stephb1986 wrote: »

I felt so sad when that dog died I nearly cried they didn't try hard enough to save it.

That's a rather sweeping statement to make based on approximately 10-15 seconds of footage. The issue with that particular piece was the storage of used blood bags, not the efforts made to resuscitate the dog, about whose situation we knew very little.

Stephb1986 wrote: »

That poor dog that had one of it's pads cut because some foolish girl caught them in the cage door.

Again, I think the point of this piece was to illustrate the lies told to the owner and charging for the cream - which I personally found very distasteful. The shutting of the foot in the door was likely an unfortunate accident (ever accidentally caught your finger in a drawer?). I doubt they maliciously slammed the door shut on the poor dog's foot.

There were some truly disgraceful things on the programme (hitting the dog over the head, lying to owners about how injuries were caused), but I felt some other parts were overhyped.

We perform tours 'behind the scenes' for any new client at our practice; clients often come into the back to drop off or collect their pets and we are happy to show anyone around, even if procedures are going on (provided it is safe to do so, ie no X-rays being taken, no skittish cats being restrained at that precise moment!). Nothing to hide back there.

Untrained staff trying to restrain animals and insert catheters without supervision is definitely not good. But even in experienced hands frightened animals do struggle and excited ones tend to wriggle: fact. I wish we could just tell them we are trying to help them and if they stayed still it would all be over! The situation as portrayed on the programme could have been dealt with a LOT better but it is not always the fault of the veterinary staff if an animal is difficult to restrain (and I repeat, the staff in the Setter's case didn't help the situation, I'm not trying to defend it, just make it clear that our job can be difficult).

I hope this programme hasn't dented the public's confidence in the profession any further.

Silveralice

Good post, Shoshannah. I've been a vet for 20 years, and I still sometimes struggle to get a catheter into a vein, if it's a particularly difficult one; at my practice we have no problem with having owners around during procedures, if they are sensible, and nothing to hide, but we sometimes, if rarely, have cats or dogs that go ballistic and are really hard to handle, and situations that don't go the way we'd wanted them to: any practice does. I think the programme focussed on so many unrelated but genuinely significant issues (untrained staff performing medical procedures, staff treating animals disrespectfully, lying, overcharging, abuse of charitable blood donations - that's 5 already) that it would be easy for a lay viewer to think that everything they showed in the programme was unacceptable and to be condemmed, whereas some things - like the new vet struggling to tube the cat, for example - while not ideal, are the sorts of things that inevitably are going to happen sometimes while veterinary staff remain human and therefore don't always perform perfectly. There is a big difference between knowingly bad practice and human error, and I am sure that if any one reading this was secretly filmed in their workplace for 9 months they would do some things during that time which they could have done better or wish they'd done differently - none of us are perfect. But the issues which the programme sought to highlight are generally indefensible, I think. I've made plenty of accidental mistakes in my career and I still do, just like every other human being on the planet, but I have never lied to a client, broken the rules on what lay staff can do, etc - those are deliberate wrong actions, and fair game for public exposure, I think.

Rev

I haven't read all this thread and I've just watched this documentary.

I found this incredibly saddening. We pet owners find it hard enough to take our pets to vets and leave them there for treatment. We have to trust the vet will take care of the animals the way we would. Now, watching this, my confidence in vet practices in general has taken a huge knock.

I know that with most things, in this case, it's the minority giving the majority a bad name, but still, I know next time I have to take one of my animals to the vets, I'll find it just that little bit harder to do so.

sassy_one

I would never take my cat to a Dogs and Cats home.

I have walked/driven past our local one, and heard the poor animals crying, its painful and not nice

cyberbob

Sorry i've not had time to read all the responses. I finally sat down and watched the documentary last night. I know that the BBC obviously had an agenda when making the program. There implications were that all chains were bad by just showing the sole practice vet explaining his business this reinforced the idea, It would have been a far more balanced program if they had managed to talk to one of the other chains. I suppose though time spent balancing the program up wouldn't have got the shock value they were after.

Every business has problems be it a chain or a sole practice. It's how these problems are addressed which shows the true measure of a business. One of the most disturbing things I found about this documentary was the way medivet kept making excuses for all the practices highlighted. If they had appeared on the program and held there hands up and apologised and shown that these issues were being addressed and that measure were in place to stop a repeat of any of them. They would have looked like a vets that cared about it;s customers and patients. By fobbing off with these dodgy statements it showed where there priorities really were.

I don't look upon vets with rose tinted glasses problems happen. We pay a lot of money for veterinary care and we expect professional honest service that puts welfare first and will address problems when they arrive and not sweep them under the carpet.

One other thing that the program did highlight is how toothless the Royal Veterinary College is (As they can only deal with the Vet not the business). Personally I think there needs to be a regulator (as in other industries maybe Offvet ) to monitor and cap prices if need be. All you need to do is see the different prices from some vets for vaccinations and neutering to realise some are taking the !!!! and seriously overcharging.

CFC

Medivet statement response statement here
http://www.medivet.co.uk/news_view.asp?id=112

I must say that refuting that they are over relying on trainee nurses by a statement that they have 79 qualified nurses and 185 students or care assistants is hardly reassuring!

Plus the chap hitting the dog was reported at the time and given 'a severe reprimand' by a vet. So severe that it didn't hamper his promotion. Only now are they investigating properly. This shows that there is no real culture of care when such reports are ignored. There is no point having a policy that striking an animal may result in summary dismissal if you then fail to investigate such reports by colleagues thoroughly.

MrsE_2

hayley11 wrote: »

What gets me, is they're coming back saying it was an error with the insurance but that vet admitted they'd done it on purpose! And that trainee admitted that dog had been hurt at the vets and yet they came back and said it was because of it's skin condition.

They're just showing themselves to be a bunch of liars and I do hope people stop using them based on this.

The programme was damaging, their responses to the "issues" were even more damaging IMO.

They just applied lie on top of lie:(

cyberbob

pinkshoes wrote: »

I certainly won't be watching this biassed BBC rubbish tonight!

I have a little inside information on this, and the BBCs tactics in getting footage was far from professional (downright dirty to be precise)! It's amazing what lengths they go to to make good TV at the expense of others, and yet there will be gullible people who will watch this and believe everything they're seeing.

By all means watch, but don't believe everything the media brainwash you with.

How are you able to judge a program that you haven't seen? Ok yes we know these programmes can be biased but what intelligent people do is watch and assess. No matter how biased you think this programme was
There are simple facts.

A dogs paw was injured in the practice and they phoned the owner and lied in order to charge them more money.

One of there vets was struck of for professional mis conduct.

Vets inflated bills for insurance and admitted it on camera

Someone hit a dog.

A cat was given a premed to early making it distressing to intubate it.

Medivets response was poor and they only decided to investigate after the program was broadcast

Blood that was used was resealed for use again

I have no illusions about how the media push and manipulate subjects and I believe this program could have been far more balanced. I'm afraid no matter how much you try and bury your head in the sand and your so called information it cannot be disputed that some of Medivets actions were very unprofessional and against the welfare of the animals

hayley11

And further more, Medivet have now admitted all these things happened, so i'm confused as to what inside information pinkshoes has that they don't?

jackieglasgow

The story that really upset me was the poor man with the greyhound/lurcher cross who had cancer and the idiot vet was too busy trying to con money out of him, to notice. Just as well he got his backside well and truly kicked! Disgraceful behaviour.