Complain to the vet

[Cheripie64]

Poppy was just not right, hesitant on walks, didnt really want to move, knew she was not right. Went to vet on friday, who checked her over, no problem with legs or back, vet thinks maybe a stomach problem. Gave her anti inflammatory injection and pain killer injection. £118.00 bring back on monday after monitering. A bit brighter at the weekend, but not eating her dinner. Back to vets today. Poppy nervous, does a wee on the floor. They keep a sample, say to me, blood test £98.00 they take that, wait for 20 mins for result. Blood test clear, oh should they do a urine test as they have it there, £18.00
Eureka! Water infection. But really vet should have done urine test first as much cheaper and far less painful for Poppy. AIBU to complain?

Why was the Friday visit so expensive? She must have had more than an anti inflammatory injection and a consultation for that price?

Won't your insurance cover it?

Diagnosing a bacterial infection from a sample taken from the floor?! That's very strange indeed as contamination would definitely be an issue. Infections can only be diagnosed from a sterile sample.

That’s is one very expensive Vets!
I had a caesarean done on a sheep, took an hour and a half, at midnight on a Sunday, and it cost just over £100. That’s for an emergency call out to the farm too.

I know farm clients tends to get cheaper rates than small animals and definitely cheaper than horses but what you’re paying seems very high.

I think they should have eliminated the easier to diagnose and I would assume more common problems first. That and it would have been a lot easier on your pocket.

Also pain killer injection, oh did get fleas treatment while I was there on the friday.
Its not the point wether insurance would cover it.
The blood test was unnecessary if had taken urine test first.

When did the dog wee? How did he test wee on the floor? Hope Poppy is feeling better

FreudianSlurp
Of course bank balance matters, but my point is the blood test was unnecessary, causing unnecessary pain for my dog.If they had taken the urine test first. I have explained that.

If she’s showing non-specific signs, tender abdomen or is an older dog then a blood year makes sense to check liver and kidney function. The blood test was clear, this is a good thing - if your vet had simply treated a urine infection and missed out on kidney disease you’d likely be much more upset! Vets recommend tests based on their likely diagnostic usefulness, not on price, so you’d be complaining about the Vet choosing the best test that they could with the information that they had. I assume that you gave permission for the tests? You seem to resent paying for Veterinary treatment but it is a necessary cost and diagnostic tests are part of that cost. Private medical Care is expensive
This article is useful www.telegraph.co.uk/pets/news-features/pet-costs-do-vets-charge-much/

To the PP who stated that you need a sterile sample to determine a urine infection, no you don’t - the presence of blood, protein and/or leukocytes in urine in conjunction with clinical signs would give a pretty clear indication.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing isn't it.

Were you offered tests the first time you were in, and declined because you'd rather try and treat first and see how the dog went?

Unfortunately the patients can't tell the vet what is wrong and unless the dog was showing clinical signs of a urine infection then it can be a process of elimination.

Ask him to whip out the crystal ball next time. It's much cheaper.

Those prices are extortionate, you need to change vets

my point is the blood test was unnecessary, causing unnecessary pain for my dog.If they had taken the urine test first. I have explained that.

Assuming that neither you nor you Vet are psychic - how would either of you know the blood test is unnecessary until it was performed and the results analysed? I assume that you didn’t know this when you consented, why would you expect your Vet to have known in advance of the test being performed that it was ‘unnecessary’

I agree even if vet had done urine sample first, they would probably still need blood test too.

Yes what of the urine sample was clear? Would that have been un-necessary at that point?

I'm going to have to hide this thread.

Your vet is probably on shedloads of commission for blood tests. That's why it would have been suggested. And there is nothing vets like more than putting animals through tests and giving them medications for no reason. That's usually why they joined the profession in the first place. That and to make heaps of money of course.

So based on that trial and error, it would make sense to do the urine test first as that was obviously non invasive, and as it turns out the issue was found, which would have made the blood test unnecessary. She has anti inflammatory liquid and antibiotics. If after the course was finished there was still a problem, then a blood test would be necessary. And no, I was not offered the tests on Friday. I took the vets advice and monitered her over the weekend.

I assume vet based tests on what the symptoms were, what ruled out the most and experience?

she has anti inflammatory liquid and antibiotics. If after the course was finished there was still a problem, then a blood test would be necessary.

Except of course anti inflammatories and some antibiotics are contra indicated in liver or kidney disease, and so if there had been an underlying disorder doing this could have put your pets life at risk.

But you clearly believe that you know much better than a well qualified professional. Never let ignorance stand in the way of a good complaint eh?

YANBU. Having recently been through a vets experience that saw certain tests not done straight away and ultimately resulting in the death of my beautiful boy, oh and them "accidentally" getting the bill wrong on several occasions an "accidental" £50 here and there plus getting different opinions off different vets in same surgery and different (by £500) surgery cost estimates. I honestly felt like they made it up as they went along. If by any chance your surgery name brings with a C in a town beginning with a B or H then be prepared to challenge everything.

The vet may have still wanted to do bloods anyway even after the urine test showed infection

FreudianSlurp
Thats what tests are for to find the issue. I.e trial and error. Would have thought that was obvious. As it needed pointed out that dogs cant speak!
Veterinari, I think I read on another thread that you are a vet, apart from the name. I am not as ignorant, as you are rude, if that is the way you deal with your clients, I bet your practice has plenty of complaints.
Jassmells
Very sorry to hear you lost your dog x

typical op

aibu?

yes

no im not!

Yes indeed, we all spend an absolute minimum of 5 years qualifying and working and studying our arses off to do this job in order to perform unnecessary invasive procedures on our patients. I agree that it would be an awful lot easier if they handed us a crystal ball on graduation.

For a non-specific presentation you start with the most likely causes and go from there, using the tests that are going to have the greatest diagnostic usefulness and for non-urgent cases, conservative treatments to start with that cover a spectrum of common possibilities for that particular presentation i.e. the injections she had at the first appointment and instructions to monitor. With no change in the condition 48 hours later then blood tests would be the next logical step because they can diagnose a wide range of common/likely issues (as well as uncommon/unlikely ones too obviously).

Often we really can't win, but in the absence of that crystal ball, in a non-specific diagnostic situation I would always rather be accused of doing too much for my patients than too little - within the bounds of what is reasonable given the information I have at the time - and it has nothing whatsoever to do with money or enjoying carrying out procedures for the sake of it.