Since the Complaints Committee’s report from last Boardtalk (December ’08), the Veterinary Practioners Board has determined another thirteen complaints against veterinary practitioners after investigation by the Complaints Committee (CC). Additionally there are nine cases presently under investigation.
Two of the thirteen investigations resulted in the veterinary practioners receiving cautions and fines for unsatisfactory professional conduct; the Board dismissed the other eleven complaints.
Of the dismissed complaints, two were dismissed in accordance with section 46.1a of the Veterinary Practice Act, as the Board was satisfied that these complaints were ‘frivolous or vexatious or otherwise lacking in merit’.
When the Board’s CC has reviewed all the documentation of the case, it may dismiss the complaint or establish grounds for ‘particularising’ the complaint. The CC may then issue a ‘notice to attend’ for the veterinarian to be interviewed by the CC to review the particulars (as notified) of the case. The Board holds a strong view that veterinarians should make every effort to attend this interview, as it is an important forum for further fact gathering, which usually leads to resolution of outstanding issues. Since the last CC report, four veterinarians have been interviewed by the CC.
• The senior veterinarian ‘accepting responsibility for treating a patient although unable to provide treatment within a timely manner; and the junior veterinarian administering an excessively high dose of medication or recorded the dosage of the medications incorrectly’.
This case highlighted the requirement for new graduates to have access to experienced veterinarians or to be made to feel comfortable to ask for guidance from veterinarians from other practices if their more experienced practice colleagues are unavailable.
• The veterinarian demonstrated a lack of care in the disposal of used equipment and unused drugs with reference to a horse euthanasia that did not go smoothly.
Of the complaints dismissed outright, most originated from dissatisfied outcomes to treatment. Clearer communication with the client may have avoided the compliant being lodged with the Board. One complaint may have been provoked by another practitioner commenting on the diagnosis and treatment provided, even though they did not have the relevant facts. Another case involved a veterinarian failing to administer emergency treatment to a ‘walk-in’ patient; however the veterinarian was treating another urgent patient at the time.
In four of the dismissed complaints, the Board also exercised its authority under section 46.5 to ‘issue a caution to the veterinary practitioner against whom the compliant was made in respect of the matter complained of’ in order to alert the practitioner to comply more fully with aspects of the Code of Professional Conduct, or to minimise the occurrence of such a complaint arising against the practitioner in the future.
• alert two veterinarians to the fact that estimates are not ‘optional’ - but a legal requirement under the Veterinary Practitioners Code of Professional Conduct 16 b; A veterinary practitioner must, where it is practicable to do so and before providing veterinary services in relation to an animal, inform the person responsible for the care of the animal of: a) the likely extent and outcome of the veterinary services, and b) the estimated cost of those services.
• alert a practitioner that the Board felt that his recommended frequency of bandage changes, especially in cases where wounds need to heal by secondary intention, required review.
• alert a practitioner to the requirement to discuss the option of case referral with the client. In this case there was a vet to vet discussion that it was not in the patient’s welfare for it to travel to receive specialist attention; however the Board recognised that the client was entitled to be included in such discussions.
Although the Board is concerned about the level of current complaints, it is alarmed at the number of telephone calls made to the office staff from clients wanting information about ‘how to complain’.
The Board is fortunate to have staff that are empathetic to calls from the public and they provide them with the time to ‘get the complaint off their chest’ by talking to someone about it.
The Registrar and the Complaints Officer are the two Board officers that take calls from the public regarding complaints. The Board’s standard initial policy response is to refer the client back to the practice Superintendent to discuss their concerns. If they are still not satisfied, then they have a right under the Act, to make a complaint.
The Board expects that the client will get a fair hearing when this referral to the Superintendent is exercised!
