Vets4Pets - Northampton, East Midlands

Response Posted by Admin on behalf of Vets4Pets - Northampton

As you can imagine we are very disappointed to have a client come away from a visit to the practice and feel they have not been given the best possible treatment.

Jerry was presented as an emergency at the clinic by the RSPCA. She was unconscious and had been attacked by a dog. She was immediately assessed by the vet
and placed on intravenous fluids, given opiod analgesia and placed on oxygen and a heat pad. Jerry was in extreme shock at this point from the attack.
Once the treatment for shock and analgesia had been started costs were then discussed with the owner.

We explained Jerry had severe injuries from the dog attack, and gave an estimate for overnight care to which the owner agreed after several minutes deliberating whether to carry on with treatment. Jerry then received oxygen therapy, intravenous fluids and analgesia for the next few hours. This is the recognised treatment for shock in cats. Jerry did initially respond but then deteriorated.

The vet explained that he had severe injuries from the dog attack, and despite doing everything we could for Jerry he unfortunately deteriorated and a decision
was made to euthanase him on humane grounds. Everything that was possible was done to treat Jerry.
Surgery was not indicated as Jerry was in severe shock and it is well recognised that an animal must be stabilised before any surgery is indicated. To describe the treatment Jerry received as "bare minimum" is incorrect - Jerry received gold standard care and treatment as does every animal that visits the practice here in Northampton.

The vet did discuss with the owner whether they would like to take Jerry home with them and it was decided that they did not wish to do that and cremation was the preferred option. As finances had been a consideration when discussing Jerry's treatment the vet did make an assumption that a group cremation would
be the more cost effective option for the owner. This was done with the best possible intentions and intended to reduce the stress and upset for the client. To hear later on that the client's son was not happy with that decision is regrettable and obviously very unfortunate, but again we would reiterate it was with the intention of reducing further upset.

The dissatisfaction raised by the owner's son did not occur until nearly a week later. Had they phoned in the following several days of the attack, we would still have been able to change the cremation arrangements. This comment is not intended as an excuse in anyway, but to state that there was a time window where the family could have changed the situation. All in all this has been a very regrettable situation and a shock for the owner to lose Jerry so suddenly and quickly.
When speaking to the owner's son, I did offer to write or phone the owner again to express our regret and condolences at that time but this offer was refused.