LEARNING IN PRACTICE
Members of the veterinary profession have a responsibility to uphold standards to ensure the public has access to safe , quality veterinary care . When those standards are compromised , the College responds . Every veterinarian can learn from these situations and publishing the details of complaints received and resolved is intended to support that learning . Learning from peers is best . The example below is taken from an actual case that went before the Complaints Committee and is offered as a self-reflection tool to improve practice across the province
NO ACTION TAKEN IN EMERGENCY CARE CASE
CASE SUMMARY
The member was contacted to go to a farm to treat a horse that was bleeding from a serious cut to its leg . The member was unable to go to the farm due to commitments at his clinic . The horse was unable to receive veterinary care and was shot .
CASE OUTCOMES
The Complaints Committee panel decided that , although serious , the allegations made against the member did not warrant a discipline hearing in the circumstances and therefore , directed that this matter not be referred to the Discipline Committee . The panel decided not to take any further action .
CASE CONSIDERATIONS
When the client discovered the horse ’ s serious injury , she contacted a veterinarian who was already coming to the farm with medication for a different horse . That veterinarian suggested the client contact the member for emergency treatment . When contacted , the member indicated he could not leave his clinic but the other veterinarian could pick up supplies from his clinic to treat the horse . When the veterinarian arrived at the farm , the client told him about the member ’ s offer . However , the veterinarian indicated he had other appointments to go to .
The veterinarian suggested the client contact the member again to ask him to treat or euthanize the horse as the bleeding would not stop . The client begged the member to come to her farm , but he refused and suggested she trailer the horse to the hospital . The client said the horse could not be trailered because an artery and tendon had been severed and the horse could not stand .
The client contacted another veterinarian and was told the member should attend her farm as it was in his service district . The client was left without any veterinary services for her horse .
The member is a sole practitioner at a small rural clinic . He closes his hospital to make large animal calls . His mobile is for food producing animals but allows for the treatment of horses . The member saw the client ’ s animals in 2018 , however , the client then told him she was going to work with another veterinarian . There was no formal action to terminate the veterinarian-client-patient relationship .
On the day the horse was injured , the member indicated he was busy with four surgeries and some of the geriatric patients had difficulty recovering from anesthesia . Because his patients were under observation , he could not leave the clinic . The member also had euthanasia appointments booked for that day .
The panel noted that based on the available information , it appeared the member had not been to the client ’ s farm for over a year and the client had been using the services of other veterinary clinics for her horses . The client had contacted her two regular veterinarians to examine the injured horse and neither were available .
The panel took into account the member was unable to leave his clinic because he had animals requiring his attention , but he was willing to provide another veterinarian with the necessary supplies for the horse . It appears the veterinarian declined this offer and attempted to assist the horse without equipment .
It is unfortunate the client was left without appropriate care for the horse , however , the panel considered the member ’ s actions to be reasonable in the circumstances . The member explained that he could not leave his clinic because he was treating patients needing his attention and he offered options to the client . With respect to the member being the veterinarian for the client ’ s area , the panel had no evidence to indicate the member had agreed to continue to provide emergency services to the client after she discontinued using his services .
The panel acknowledged the difficulties in obtaining veterinary care in northern rural locations . It appears the member tried to assist the client by offering materials and suggesting the horse be trailered to him .
The panel noted the client was faced with a challenging and stressful situation as she attempted to access emergency services in a rural area , where such services are difficult to access given the distances that veterinarians travel . Unfortunately , the horse did not receive veterinary intervention and through no apparent fault of anyone involved , veterinary services were unavailable .
The panel trusts veterinarians are vigilant about ensuring arrangements for emergency services are appropriate and adequately cover patient needs in the interest of patient-centered care . Clients also need to be aware of how to access these services for their animals .
The client indicated the member did not have a great deal of knowledge about equine medicine . As equine veterinary services are limited in the area , the client said she used the member for vaccinations and emergency services . The client questioned why the member did not consult with an experienced equine veterinarian for help . The panel noted the member is not required to consult with other veterinarians regarding any patient .
In conclusion , the panel decided there was not sufficient information to indicate the member failed to act appropriately in the circumstances . The panel , therefore , decided to take no further action .
6 College Connection Spring 2021 cvo . org