Forensic Vet Report

hachette

I am writing this new thread following my previous "my dog bled to death 2 hours after leaving surgery practice" that has been locked. I now have got the expert report that has confirmed all my fears as to the terribly inadequate treatment that my dog had received including confirmation that Max was sent home with active bleeding. The reason for starting this new thread is that many people have been very kind and helpful in my search for the truth and maybe interested how it is progressing. Also if some of you were or might find yourself in similar situation this may give you more encouragement to pursue matters if you think wrongdoing has occurred.

Here are some quotes from the report:

"It is my view that a breach of this duty occurred. Ms...was unable to read and interpret the pre-op blood test result and her competence; skill and judgment fell below that which would be expected for an average reasonably competent veterinary surgeon.
With regard to Mrs ...she failed in her duty of care by providing a report that did is not consistent with pathologist findings and this is exacerbated by both vets providing similar description of their findings in both reports that the bleeding occurred prior to surgery. This is an unsatisfactory coincidence that would not be supported by a reasonable vet..... It would seem unusual that the patient was discharged with pressure bandage, knowing that active bleeding was occurring and the platelet count was so low.

5.15 To address the issue of was the loss foreseeable? Then the
question must be asked as to:
a. Why pre-operative blood tests were performed and
subsequently misinterpreted?
b. Why was the intra operative bleeding considered to be a preoperative
event when pathologist reports it to be iatrogenic?
c. Why the pressure bandages post operatively?
d. Why no blood or plasma transfusion?
e. Why no request for specialist advice or guidance?
f. Why was the bleeding animal discharged?
5.16 At each stage of 5.15 (the above) the loss was foreseeable and was met with optimism bias-an expectation that it will work out for the best....
5.17 I am satisfied that the 4 criteria for demonstration of negligence viz;
A.Presence of duty of care
B.Breech of that duty
C.other considerations
D.Occurrence of foreseeable loss.
Have been demonstrated in this case against Ms.... and Mrs....
Summary of conclusion;
Max did bleed to death following the operation.
the operation did cause the bleeding to occur.
Max did have an existing anomaly with his blood that prevented his blood from being able to clot.
The pathology report has suggested the vet may have caused the bleeding during operation.
Indicators of an existing coagulopathy in Max were present but not correctly interpreted in a pre-operative blood test.
a Veterinary surgeon of normal skill and judgment and reasonably competent would not have proceeded with the surgery."

I wonder what the RCVS will have to say when I present this to them ? I think giving a bleeding dog back to its unsuspecting owner is unforgivable.

pinkshoes

So the next step is to get a full refund of all vet fees and costs incurred. Give them a copy of the report.

Oli.s

I was just wondering what happened in terms of updates and found your old thread which had been locked.

I'm glad you've started a new one and hope it doesn't descend into the same ilk as the last one.

Some people think support your efforts and have the opportunity to continue supporting you.

Some don't, and I'd say to them, even if they think your wasting your time, you being able to talk about your dogs death is your choice, and if you think it's helpful to you then who is anyone else to try and stop you.

Just don't go off getting sidetracked with dogs trust accusations etc again or I fear the thread will end up like the last one, which would be a shame.

annettegottlieb

Were dogs trust involved in killing the op's dog then? That is awful, I thought that they never put a healthy dog down. Don't think I will contribute to them again, if that is what they do.

What do they use all the money donated for then if they aren't looking after the dogs?

@OP sorry for your loss.

System

annettegottlieb wrote: »

Were dogs trust involved in killing the op's dog then? That is awful, I thought that they never put a healthy dog down. Don't think I will contribute to them again, if that is what they do.

What do they use all the money donated for then if they aren't looking after the dogs?

@OP sorry for your loss.

I think the point was the dog wasn't healthy due to the vet being incompetent.

peachyprice

annettegottlieb wrote: »

Were dogs trust involved in killing the op's dog then? That is awful, I thought that they never put a healthy dog down. Don't think I will contribute to them again, if that is what they do.

What do they use all the money donated for then if they aren't looking after the dogs?

@OP sorry for your loss.

Dogs Trust has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the death of OP's dog.

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

hachette

wealdroam wrote: »

That may well be so, but the OP 'being able to talk' is not a Consumer Rights subject, is it?

I think this is very much Consumer Rights subject. I have paid for a service that was well below standard and suffered a loss. This I am still in process of recovering. Yes it will not bring my dog back but at least I will not feel that I have paid over hundreds of pounds to people who have caused my dog's death.
Having read the report I feel that I have been treated very badly by RCVS and I think this issue should be addressed. My complaint was taken on the basis of: quote
"The issues of professional misconduct identified in your complaint are as follows:
Your allegation that Miss...and Mrs ... failed to provide veterinary care that was appropriate and adequate "

Then after receiving my vets statements of event they concluded:
Quote " The Case Examiners considered your concern that despite the blood results revealing a low platelet count(14),the veterinary surgeons proceeded with surgery. They noted that Miss...said the low platelet count was thought to be result clumping leading to an error in the laboratory machine reading, but despite any possible error in the machine she had used other indicators to satisfy herself that it was reasonable to proceed with surgery, namely that there was no evidence of clotting issues seen on physical examination,that blood left in the syringe used to take blood sample had clotted fine, and there was no bruising around the venopuncture site"
This is what my forensic vet said about that statement:
Quote: "

4.13 In response to these observations Ms [Removed] then decided to
proceed with surgery.
4.14 An assessment of lack of bruising at the venepuncture
site is a reasonable but unreliable approach to assess
blood-clotting function. When taking blood from a patient
it is not uncommon for veins to blow and bruising to be
observed in a normal animal. A lack of observed bruising
is not an indication of no bruising as the bruising can be
small and invisible to the naked eye in patients with low
platelets and clotting deficits.
4.15 To observe and note blood left in a syringe would seem an
unusual practice. Needles and syringes are usually disposed off
immediately after blood has been taken and placed into a
sharps bin and a clinical waste bin. There is no need to look at
blood in a syringe to obtain clinical information and this
statement is unexpected.
4.16 Low platelet and other coagulopathies will leave clinical
indicators through clinical examination. Not finding them is not an
indication that they were not there. The haematology results and
the purpose of the pre-operative blood test would indicate an
anomaly with this animal’s fitness for surgery. The inability to
interpret the haematology is, in my view an indication of a low
standard of skill and judgement. The response by Ms.... to
demonstrate her attempts to corroborate the anomalous
haematology results would demonstrate inexperience. "

I can only conclude that by accepting my vet's explanation and closing my case the standard of the expertise of RCVS Case Examiners is well below what should be expected from
reasonably competent veterinary surgeons. I feel that RCVS have treated my like a fool and I will be writing to the complaints department chairman for an explanation.

hachette

Seems a lot of "advisers" from consumer rights forum have" egg on their faces". It all has gone quiet. No more abuse.

hachette

annettegottlieb wrote: »

Were dogs trust involved in killing the op's dog then? That is awful, I thought that they never put a healthy dog down. Don't think I will contribute to them again, if that is what they do.

What do they use all the money donated for then if they aren't looking after the dogs?

@OP sorry for your loss.

I have to stress that my dog's death had nothing to do with Dogs Trust. The thread just went in different direction at some point and you obviously did not read the beggining

bod1467

You have left a name visible in post 7, in point 4.16.

System

bod1467 wrote: »

You have left a name visible in post 7, in point 4.16.

Ms Smith. I suspect that's not enough to identify her