No animal on fluid therapy should be left alone for the following reasons:
Hydration status cannot be monitored and the animal can become overhydrated. This can be fatal. Especially for a cat.
The IV pump could alarm and stop (and usually does) meaning the patient will not receive the fluids it needs.
The patient can become restless and disconnect their IV line or pull out their IV catheter leaving an open port directly into their vein for bacteria.
Most vets will have signs posted stating that there is no night attendant on duty. I believe this is also required by law. Honest vets will tell you outright that your pet will not be monitored overnight and explain the risks stated above. They will also suggest that you take your pet to a 24 hour emergency facility for monitoring while on fluids. Further, they will have you sign an AMA if you refuse to transfer your pet. Less honest vets will withhold that information and continue charging you for hospitalization.
I have seen pets die in their cages overnight because they didn't get the fluids they needed.
Any cat not eating should be at least syringe fed to avoid hepatic lipidosis. If your cat was truly not given food for such extended periods, there had better be a legitimate reason why. It is otherwise malpractice.
There should be DVM notes for every day that she was there. If not, that is malpractice.
"N0 one had told him (The weekend vet) he should look at Lakshmi."
Oh, that's BAD! Total malpractice. He is personally responsible for every single patient in that hospital. In no way can he blame staff for his neglect.
"Lakshmi did not eat food when offered. My feeing was it was because of under-treated pain."
Very possible.
Dr. Abdelmalak said the three sets of X-rays were very difficult to read and understand because they showed poor organ definition.
Or because they were crap x-rays taken by crap staff with a crap machine. I would have to see them.
You have some very good and very pursuable points on how Lakshmi was neglected. I would stick with that. If you want VV investigated, you need to get a copy of your records and file a complaint with the VMB.
30 comments:
The bottom line is that every animal is entitled to and required by law to receive adequate care regardless of fees and discounts.
It is the cheap vets who will take advantage and cut corners in patient care to save a buck and claim that they offer good pricing.
The general public is under the impression that their pet gets the same care for a better price. This is not true. That being said, let's get to where they failed in standard of care and adhering to basic practice law.
Small is not against the law. Unattended, unconscious animals is. Go with that. You were told that no night staff was no big deal. Based on the nature of her case this is malpractice and they didn't want to lose money on hospitalization fees should you have chosen to transfer. It was not your job to foresee the actuality. It was the vet's job to communicate that to you. It's called a prognosis. Again, the not being fed part is also malpractice.
She should have been syringe fed to avoid compromising to her liver.
If her condition was dire and needed immediate surgery, then how in the world would no night staff be "no big deal"?? If her condition was dire, then she should have been transported after surgery to a 24-hour care facility. It's either dire, or it's not. It sounds like they told you it was dire to get you to pay them for the surgery and then turned around and claimed aftercare was no big deal to get you to continue to pay them for hospitalization when in fact she should have been transferred.
You are not expected to make the most rational decision. The vet is required by law to provide you with an honest diagnosis and prognosis and offer you your options. It is the vet's job to tell you which options are ideal and which are less ideal.
It doesn't sound like that happened here. It sounds like they wanted your money at the expense of your cat. You are not required to have the medical expertise to decide on the best care. It is the vet's job to have the medical expertise and to offer the options for the best care. Your job is to take it, or leave it. You weren't given those options. You were given one option and one option only. Again, at the expense of your cat.
The weekend vet should have done more than just check her incision. He should have examined her and documented her condition in the medical record. No doing so is malpractice.
I understand that what you wrote was addressed as a complaint to the city. If you want something done about VV, you need to complain to the VMB. The City has no jurisdiction over VV. As far as they're concerned, they are just a customer. If you want to give them bad press, that's fine but if you want to stop them from doing what they did to you and Lakshmi, you need to file a complaint with the VMB.
If you want to claim the City contracted with a bad vet practice, this would still involve filing a complaint with the VMB. What they will receive is an inspection, fines and possible revocation of their DVM and practice licenses.
You either want to stop them, or you don't. Moreover, if you want to rally others to agree with you, you want to focus on what they did that was illegal and how your cat suffered because of it.
I agree with poster number one.
Ed Muzika,
You have lost any objectivity and credibility you may have had by using this blog to vent a personal vendetta against Value Vet. Soon you may be the only one reading your blog. It's pitiful. Get off your high horse and start commenting on real issues that people may give a shit about.
And what is it you think people are really interested in?
They have no interest that a sub par vet may be running two City Spay/neuter clinics and overcharge the public?
They have no interest in the relationship between Pierce College and LAAS personnel who warn Pierce that an ACTF inspection is comming?
What about the Mason case? Is that of interest to anyone?
What about the live save/kill stats of LAAS and County for the last 5 years; is that interesting?
Are you a casual reader who is gently guiding me towards what coverage will build readership, or are you someone who wants me to back off Value Vet?
A really good way to spot a cheap vet is to look at their staff. When you walk in, are they sitting attentively at the front desk in uniform or are they slumped in their chairs in jeans around their ass stuffing food in their faces while text messaging their friends?
Are the "technicians" old enough to have a work permit? Do they look like they've been in the field for very long? Can they even spell diarrhea? Or did they just get promoted from working at the fast food joint down the street. These are the ones sticking needles and tubes into your animals for minimum wage.
Check out your vet's office. The staff should be neat, clean professional and competent. There should be AT LEAST one registered veterinary technician on staff. The rest should be attending formal training at an AVMA certified program.
Patient care is not a joke. It's not a game, or a hobby, or something you do while you're in high school for gas money. You really do get what you pay for.
Nice try, #3, but pretending to be an irritated reader rather than a (how shall I put this?) dedicated underminer won't work.
I'd suggest going back to your day job, but I suspect that since I suspect you're either Ed Boks or Jim Bickhart (or one of their minions, which is even sadder) it'd probably be better for US if you stop doing your day job too.
#5, I've been to the Value Vet on Westwood Blvd. and the staff at that location, particularly the desk staff, are quite professional. This is a tiny, hole-in-the-wall place so they don't do overnight care. But they're nice enough, and professional. You shouldn't smear the desk staff, they're not the ones making the bad medical decisions anyway.
Dr. Davidson at Westwood is good for surgery, not so much for diagnosis. He's done a couple of cat spays for me and removed my one dog's eye when it had to go, and those all turned out fine.
He didn't catch my no-longer-with-us cat's cancer. Since then I have wondered if the VV vets are barred from referring owners to other vets or specialists. In retrospect, I realize that's what he should have done and he didn't. He then was gone on vacation and a very weird guy subsitituted who ordered thyroid tests and inisted my by-then emaciated cat had LOW thyroid(?!)
It might be worth looking into if they are prohibited from referring patients to other vets/specialists. But the desk staff has nothing to with VV's corporate policies.
The bottom line is that we are responsible for taking charge of our animals health care. We should know enough to know whether an animal can be left alone or not. If not, take him home or take him to emergency. Vets are running a business. A FOR PROFIT buisness. They should provide a certain level of care, but the only person who is responsible ultimately for the care of the animal is the owner. Ask questions, do research and make the best decision you can.
I would never in a million years use a vet called "Value Vet" because I don't want value FIRST..I want highly competent vets and excellent medical care for my animals. That isn't to say they can't go hand in hand..I do believe they do at Clinico.
If you do not like the care given to your animals, don't use that clinic. If your animal is on fluids and your vet wants to keep him at the clinic unattended overnight, for goodness sake...bring him home or take him to emergency. Let's stop blaming others for our own incompetence.
I think Muzika has pointed out that vet costs have skyrocketed and many animals are not receiving any care, and many vets are going broke because they are not dropping fees.
To ask Muzika or anyone else to make medical decisions better than the alternatives offered by the vet in charge is unreasonable. The vet should be offerring alternatives, not the pet owner to do research when the animal is in deteriorating health.
This is blaiming the victim for not being educated enough, smart enough, informed enough. or rich enough to afford A level care. Get real.
Dear Boks = Death,
If you thought I was smearing the front staff at Value Vet, then it looks like the shoe fits them quite well. I have never been to Value Vet and my comment was simply a guideline to help spot a cheap vet practice that doesn't invest in the training and appearance of their staff. Nor were my comments restricted to front staff. Try reading the post again. Mimimum wage is more important than competence.
I have worked at several vet hospitals and I still do. I am here to tell you that those that employ sloppy teenagers do not practice good medicine. It is a very clear sign that they cut corners by employing staff that are not educated or trained in veterinary medicine. They don't care if your pet's testing and treatments are performed improperly, or without stress and pain. They care if you pay their fees while spending as little as possible on staffing. The one who pays in the end is your animal. They don't care who answers the phone when you call to ask what you should do about your vomiting dog.
So YES THEY ARE making the bad medical decisions. They cannot tell you what is an emergency and what isn't and when you should come in. They have NO IDEA if your lab tests are accurate and performed properly. I've seen pets die before ever getting to their appointment because they were scheduled for the following week when they should have been brought in immediately. I've seen diagnoses missed because of bad testing.
The bottom line is this, if you can't understand that the staff reflects on the vet, their practice and their standard of care, then you get what you deserve. Unfortunately, so does your poor animal. You may want to educate yourself or simply not own a pet. Make sure the next time you take your animal to the vet that you whisper in their ear that the suffering they are about to endure is because of what you call "corporate policy".
Vets have overhead, rent, insurance, supplies, staff, drugs, equipment, it goes on an on. None of this stuff is negotiable in price and you all would have them "drop their prices" to keep customers happy. How are they supposed to pay for the ever increasing cost of items listed above?
If you can not afford to care for your animals, the bottom line is DO NOT HAVE ANIMALS.
Vets are not God and just like human doctors, we should never put everything into their hands. It is important that you are involved in your animals care.
No doubts vets have overhead.
However, some vets have far more than others. For example, we have the 20,000 sq ft. VCA on Sepulveda with 15 or so speciality vets, oncologists, radiologists, and hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars in equipment and a huge suport and administrative staff.
Besides, each branch is owned by the corporation with its own overhead and need to give salaries and shareholders incomes.
This is a huge overhead.
On the other hand we have tiny vets like Value Vet who does not even have a stand-alone facility in West Valley and is stuck in a small corner of a retail building with 2-3 other tennants, and where the capital equipment is an X-ray machine.
The overhead is miniscule compared to VCA.
In addition, Value Vet has always been a discount vet facility that took advantage of its small overhead to offer discount prices which built the practice.
In addition, LINDA BARTH publically proclaimed the Value Vet charges were in the lowest 25%of area fees. That is, the Dept. publically supported Value Vet as a discount facility as a reason to award them the West LA contract.
When I talked to her last week, she reneged on that statement saying what was meant was that they were in the lowest 25% of spay/neuter fees.
Now, it is really, really stupid to say if you can't afford vet care, don't have animals.
Well, what about children, ditto? You should know better than to have children you can't afford. Yet, one day you can afford and the next you are faced with a $30,000 bill for hospital and surgery not covered by your insurance plan.
Who knows ahead of time how much vet bills will be encountered in a year? What about rescuers? All are extended beyond their financial means.
And, in this downturning economy, almost all animals are faced with owners unable to care.
This is reality. Someone who says something like this does not live in reality and may not even have any animals.
No doubts vets have overhead.
However, some vets have far more than others. For example, we have the 20,000 sq ft. VCA on Sepulveda with 15 or so speciality vets, oncologists, radiologists, and hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars in equipment and a huge suport and administrative staff.
Besides, each branch is owned by the corporation with its own overhead and need to give salaries and shareholders incomes.
This is a huge overhead.
On the other hand we have tiny vets like Value Vet who does not even have a stand-alone facility in West Valley and is stuck in a small corner of a retail building with 2-3 other tennants, and where the capital equipment is an X-ray machine.
The overhead is miniscule compared to VCA.
In addition, Value Vet has always been a discount vet facility that took advantage of its small overhead to offer discount prices which built the practice.
In addition, LINDA BARTH publically proclaimed the Value Vet charges were in the lowest 25%of area fees. That is, the Dept. publically supported Value Vet as a discount facility as a reason to award them the West LA contract.
When I talked to her last week, she reneged on that statement saying what was meant was that they were in the lowest 25% of spay/neuter fees.
Now, it is really, really stupid to say if you can't afford vet care, don't have animals.
Well, what about children, ditto? You should know better than to have children you can't afford. Yet, one day you can afford and the next you are faced with a $30,000 bill for hospital and surgery not covered by your insurance plan.
Who knows ahead of time how much vet bills will be encountered in a year? What about rescuers? All are extended beyond their financial means.
And, in this downturning economy, almost all animals are faced with owners unable to care.
This is reality. Someone who says something like this does not live in reality and may not even have any animals.
#9, God love ya, you're not getting my point.
The subject was specifically Value Vet. I simply pointed out that
A. My experience of them, at least in one location, is that the desk staff is not an overtly sloppy bunch of underachievers. I've actually never been to a vet in L.A. where people are, in your colorful (if not fanciful) phrase, "slumped in their chairs in jeans around their ass stuffing food in their faces while text messaging their friends"
So if all the Value Vets are like the one I've been to, Ed M. would not have had that crystal clear indicator.
and B. Desk staff, particularly in medical settings (you're not the only one whose worked in one) have zero control over policy. Therefore they are not part of the equation. The decision to provide substandard care is made by the veterinarian, foremost. In my particular case, not Ed's, I wondered, as an ancillary issue, if Value Vet had a policy against referring patients to outside vets or specialists, which would be malpractice as well.
And putting it on the pet owner is just plain not legitimate. If I walk in to a vet's office I should expect reasonable care, regardless of whether or not the name that appears before "vet" is Value or Malibu. They may not have all the state of the art facilities, but they should give baseline proper care.
In this economy (or when my dog had to have her eye removed, right after I'd lost my job) people shouldn't get slammed for doing what they can to get their pet's health taken care of. If someone's in business as a vet they should provide the proper standard of care, no matter what the bill is. For a value price I should not expect frills, or up to date magazines, but I should absolutely expect good care of my animals, not malpractice that will endanger their lives.
The endemic snobbery of the rescue community is one thing, but telling people if they try to make their rent AND care for their pet by going to a lower-priced vet then they should expect that animal to be mistreated is just plain wrong. Should I have given my dog back to the shelter she came from just because her eye needed to be removed? Do non-wealthy people lose the right to care for their animals?
People who try, no matter their income, are better than people who don't try -- who also come in every tax bracket.
>>>And putting it on the pet owner is just plain not legitimate. If I walk in to a vet's office I should expect reasonable care, regardless of whether or not the name that appears before "vet" is Value or Malibu. They may not have all the state of the art facilities, but they should give baseline proper care.<<<
You gotta love those ideals. I'm so happy for you about what you think you "should expect" and who "should give baseline proper care". Well hey, I guess if you "expect" it then it must be what really happens, right?
Please disregard my comments, which had absolutely nothing to do with "state of the art" facilities, and leave them for those who have a shred of sense of reality. They are not meant for those who cannot be helped.
"Expect?" Now THAT'S fanciful!
#14 I don't know why you feel the proper target for your hostility is people who believe that anyone who goes into business as a vet should be expected to provide basic, proper care.
That's not idealism or foolishness, it's the social contract. No matter how much a vet charges (and some who charge a lot are still lousy vets) he or she needs to provide proper care. If they don't it's both fraud and malpractice.
It doesn't even make sense to get mad at me or Ed M. for pointing that out. You seem to want to make the bad guy in these equations the pet owners rather than the vet who is providing substandard care.
It doesn't make sense to such a degree that I have to wonder what your actual motivation is. I have seen, many times, that there are people who visit this blog with the express purpose of jumping into every discussion and trying to discredit whatever the premise of the discussion is and muddy what is generally a pretty clear issue. I don't know what the percentage is in that for you, unless you are someone who profits by discrediting critics of the current City Administration and LAAS and Ed Boks (and businesses they partner with) in particular.
But attacking and childishly demeaning people who are speaking out against low-quality vet care makes no sense. You can keep insulting people, but that won't make your position any more reasonable.
Hmmmm... guess I better not expect the mechanics at the local "Discount Tire Store" to balance my tires and do the front end alignment properly because that might be expecting way too much of them.
Better yet, maybe I shouldn't even own a vehicle because when it comes right down to it, I really don't know how to fix any of them when something goes wrong.
Brad Jensen
Cypress,CA
PS - I know the mechanics at our local "Discount Tire Store" and they do excellent work. Dirty, greasy and certainly not "professional looking" but they know their shit when it comes to cars and trucks (and off-road equipment).
Brad - I love you. I just fell in love with you, man (:
Dear #14,
He doesn't get it. He'll never get it. Stop wasting your time.
...and thanks for the info, BTW. I just fired my last vet. This will help me screen my next one.
Amber
"No matter how much a vet charges (and some who charge a lot are still lousy vets) he or she needs to provide proper care. If they don't it's both fraud and malpractice."
Gee, I think that's what just happened to Ed and his cat. But wait, that's IMPOSSIBLE! You'd better rush right down there and declare that they've violated their social contract. Hurry!
Thanks, Brad. I'm so happy that those "dirty and greasy looking" mechanics actually look like real mechanics. Oh, wait. To you that was unprofessional. Hmmmm...
You speak out against low quality vet care by taking your business elsewhere. Ed is doing us and our pets all a favor by letting us know who to avoid.
Blogger #5 gave us another way to do the same thing. I'm struggling to understand how that became a problem for some. Weird.
You have got to be kidding. Not sure what world some of you people live in. Having pets is a responsibility and IF YOU CAN NOT AFFORD IT, it is a choice to have them. It is also a choice to have children..and I also believe if you CAN NOT AFFORD IT, do not have children. Just as you state, you don't know what the costs will be, so unless you are prepared with savings or to go into credit card debt...DON"T DO IT.
I am so tired of the victim mentality of "rescue" people who think someone else should pay their bills or vets should give away care because they are rescuing an animal.
I am a person who has pets, I'm also a person who runs a very large rescue. I pay the bills. If money is short...guess what, I can't save another animal, but the ones I have will have the best care. None of us can do it all, but you have to take personal responsibility for what you CHOOSE to take on.
On another note, the fact that LAAS is doing a "buy one get one free" cat promotion this weekend is a HUGE problem...Unfortunately you feel it's appropriate to promote it.
You know #22 (who is the same one throughout being such a charmer).
The fact is animals are a FACT. Like children, when you get them you don't assume your economic situation is going to go down the tubes. But then someone votes for George Bush and the whole economy tanks and then what would you have people do? Abandon the animals they have? Take them to a kill shelter?
Or should they do their damnedest to find affordable vet care?
The question is flatly absurd, as you well know. I don't know why you feel the need to mis-characterize what's been written here -- no one has asked anyone else to pay their vet bills nor did ANYONE suggest vets should give away free care. That is a lie that you made up for some unfathomable reason.
I hope you're also lying about running a rescue because God forbid your clearly charmed life take a downturn. God forbid you be in a position where you have to understand that if someone says they're a vet they should BE a vet, whether they charge $50 a visit, $75, or $200.
People have bad, unforeseeable things happen to them and if, in the midst of misfortune, they get themselves together enough to seek vet care they should GET vet care. And NO ONE should ever blame an owner for a vet's malpractice.
All you told us here is that you don't like people and don't care about their problems. That was clear in your first post. It's too bad for you but adds nothing to the discussion.
Dear Boks=Death,
#22 and #14 are not the same person. I know because I am one and not the other.
Pretty convienient how you claim we are the same when more than one person disagrees with you, though. Nice try.
>>>None of us can do it all, but you have to take personal responsibility for what you CHOOSE to take on.<<<
I don't think #23 is on board with the whole personal responsibility thing. It sounds like he wants to hold his breath and stomp his little feet over what he thinks he should get and why instead of doing an ounce of research into the vet that cares for his pet. I'm sure when he needs a brain surgeon he'll just pick one out of the phone book.
...and will someone please tell our friend Brad that cars are not the same as living, breathing animals? Thanks.
It really helps if all of you commenting can make up a fake name for consistency and clarity, like Boks=Death.
I do note that the two women claiming to do all the research about vets never share that knowledge leading me to think that they are either greedy, not wanting to share their knowledge of the good vets, or else they are all talk with no research at all.
This call to others to do research and never sharing any they had was the style of both Naysayers. They only wanted to hear themselves talk. The persona they build abiut themseleves does not exist.
Watch neither give a good word about anyone except themselves. This is serious pathology.
"I am a person who has pets, I'm also a person who runs a very large rescue. I pay the bills. If money is short...guess what, I can't save another animal, but the ones I have will have the best care.:
You are a nutcase and liar. I don't believe a word.
Interpret what I said any way you want anonymous. But I refuse to harbor resentment towards anyone who seeks medical help for their pet simply because they can't afford an overpriced care center or that they are somehow incompetent and/or irresponsible because they don't have the educational background or access to the same tools/resources that a professional would have.
And whether we're talking about professionals like lawyers, doctors, vets, etc. or skilled workers like auto mechanics, there must be an expectation that they will be competent in making decisions and providing advice when helping us. I just don't understand why we should expect any less. And if they fail through incompetence or neglect, they need to be called on it.
Brad Jensen
Cypress,CA
.
What about all the feral cat people. Feral Cat People are responsible for vet care aside from all the extraordinary expenses the multiple cats and cat colonies require once you've spayed, neutered and returned them.
How does a person with that many cats afford good vet care or any vet care at all? How is it OUR responsibility to choose to have pets in this regard?
It's the community's responsibility to provide adequate care for these animals and they all become our pets if we've 'chosen' to have them altered, and we have chosen to maintain them, as it is the humane and responsible thing to do.
Now, how are we supposed to handle all these vet bills w/ oncologists, radiologists, and other specialists.
Most people go to low-cost vets and each bill is a minimum of $200, per cat, everytime you walk out of the office, and the follow-ups continue for weeks.
Multiply your $600 minimum expenditures per cat when you are attending to multiple cats you've TNR'red.
Yes, you're going to go into tremendous debt. No tax-payer savings in that, as Alley Cat Allies likes to claim.
You are stuck forever, drowning in debt, for as long as your cats shall live. If you don't provide the care, they suffer, and you never want to neglect your cats.
My feeling is that you have NO choice, contrary to the person who feels having a pet is a choice.
What are you going to do? Let the animal suffer? Let him die by attrition? Let him rot? No. You have no choice. You take him to whoever can help and whoever you can afford with the number of cats you are responsible for caring-for.
Well, that's my feeling on the situation, anyway. It is very difficult when you have multiple numbers of animals you've taken on because somebody like Alley Cat Allies and their affiliates tell you to save the lives of these cats by trapping, neutering and returning them, and keep them from going into the shelters. Ironically, the responsibility is transferred to the shoulders of the taxpayer; no tax-deductions for any of the expenses. Where are the tax-savings in that?
There aren't. We go to whomever we can, until they die, or we can't do it anymore.
I hope this makes sense.
Post a Comment