College Connection | Fall 2025
Member demonstrates value of professional judgement
College Connection | Fall 2025
LEARNING IN PRACTICE
Member demonstrates value of professional judgement
Case Summary
The member performed a laparoscopic spay on the client’ s cat. During the surgery, the cat experienced respiratory and cardiac arrest. Despite efforts to resuscitate, the cat did not survive.
The client raised concerns about the veterinary care that was provided, and how the cat was monitored during surgery.
Case Outcomes
The Complaints Committee panel decided the allegations did not warrant a referral to the Discipline Committee. The panel was satisfied the cat was properly monitored during surgery, and appropriate anesthetic and emergency measures were taken, according to the medical records. The tragic outcome was an unexpected complication. The panel also noted the member reflected on the event and made changes in their practice to help reduce the risk of similar incidents occurring.
Case Considerations
In considering the complaint, the Complaints Committee panel reviewed the medical records, written submissions, and statements provided by all parties. As is standard for all investigations, the panel considered previous proceedings, if any.
The panel noted that the monitoring and interventions were appropriate and timely, as documented in the medical records. The records also documented the preanesthetic examination and assessment, which were unremarkable.
The member explained that all surgical patients are monitored in various ways, including a multi-parameter patient monitor, as well as a continuous electrocardiogram. Patients are also monitored manually by a veterinary technician who interprets the digital readings and correlates them with their own assessment of the patient to ensure the readings accurately represent the patient’ s status.
According to both the digital monitoring equipment readings and the manual monitoring performed by the technician, the patient did not show signs of a life-threatening issue until the final minute of the procedure. As the patient’ s stability was declining, gaps in documenting the patient’ s vital parameters in the records were due to focusing on immediate patient care during the emergency.
It was reasonable that the member’ s and their staff’ s attention was directed appropriately at the patient, rather than documenting the vital parameters in the moment.
Following the patient’ s passing, the member sought a review from a veterinarian who is board certified in anesthesia and analgesia, who considered the assessments and interventions appropriate. The member also undertook further reflection and research, after which they elected to discontinue laparoscopic spay procedures on feline patients, and implemented a policy for smaller patients to have a direct line of sight to the head despite draping.
The panel recognized that decisions regarding the provision of specific treatments and procedures are based on a range of clinical considerations. In this case, the member’ s decision to forgo further laparoscopic feline spays reflected the exercise of professional judgement after evaluating risks and benefits to patients.
The panel concluded there was no evidence that the member failed to provide appropriate and professional veterinary care. While the outcome was tragic, the allegations did not warrant any action.
References
• Professional Practice Standard Medical Records
• Guide to the Professional Practice Standard Medical Records
Veterinarians have a responsibility to provide safe, quality care. The College assists veterinarians in doing so when matters are reviewed by the Complaints Committee. The public has a right to ask questions about the care that was provided to their animal( s) and this process provides veterinarians with feedback on whether they have met the standards of practice or whether there are improvements needed to mitigate risks in practice. The Committee provides advice or may request a veterinarian enter into an undertaking when remediation would reduce risks and support a veterinarian in meeting the standard of practice. Only the most serious cases, where there is bad intent, incompetence, reckless behaviour, or a history of failure to remediate at-risk behaviour are referred to the Discipline Committee for a discipline hearing to determine if an act of professional misconduct or serious neglect may have occurred. This example is taken from a case that was reviewed by the Complaints Committee and is offered as a self-reflection tool to support veterinarians in understanding how to meet the standards of practice.
Public confidence in veterinary regulation cvo. org 8