Unsuccessful pet eye operation
Discussion
About 3 years ago one of our cats developed an ulcer in one of his eyes. Our Vet, who we have been with for about 12 years, immediately referred us to another practice which had a specialist Opthalmology Department.
An operation was carried out, including a Corneal Graft, which was successful.
A few weeks ago, a spot appeared on his eye again and so we took him back to the vets immediately. An ulcer had developed but this time we were told that the Practice had someone who could undertake the operation. When we collected him we were told that the operation had been successful although we were slightly surprised that the Vet who operated was not present. (Unlike the first operation).
After about a fortnight the spot appeared again and it appears that the Ulcer was not dealt with appropriately. Having checked the Vets qualifications there is nothing after their name which suggests any expertise in Opthalmology.
We are therefore being referred back to the original practice for further advice. It looks as though a further operation will be necessary. When we spoke to the Vet who operated they suggested waiting to see how things developed (very much against their original advice that eye ulcers needed to be dealt with as soon as possible), or alternatively removing the eye completely!
Looking at the website of the Practice that carried out the successful operation, it does refer to various specialist equipment which we believe our usual Veterinary Practice does not possess. I therefore wonder if our usual vets took on a procedure that they were not experienced enough to undertake.
I note that our usual vets, and the referral practice, are owned by the same Company. I wonder if I might get a more objective opinion by going to an independent practice not connected to either of the others.
If there are any practising vets reading this do they think that as a minimum the costs of the unsuccessful operation should be reimbursed? We do not have pet insurance.
An operation was carried out, including a Corneal Graft, which was successful.
A few weeks ago, a spot appeared on his eye again and so we took him back to the vets immediately. An ulcer had developed but this time we were told that the Practice had someone who could undertake the operation. When we collected him we were told that the operation had been successful although we were slightly surprised that the Vet who operated was not present. (Unlike the first operation).
After about a fortnight the spot appeared again and it appears that the Ulcer was not dealt with appropriately. Having checked the Vets qualifications there is nothing after their name which suggests any expertise in Opthalmology.
We are therefore being referred back to the original practice for further advice. It looks as though a further operation will be necessary. When we spoke to the Vet who operated they suggested waiting to see how things developed (very much against their original advice that eye ulcers needed to be dealt with as soon as possible), or alternatively removing the eye completely!
Looking at the website of the Practice that carried out the successful operation, it does refer to various specialist equipment which we believe our usual Veterinary Practice does not possess. I therefore wonder if our usual vets took on a procedure that they were not experienced enough to undertake.
I note that our usual vets, and the referral practice, are owned by the same Company. I wonder if I might get a more objective opinion by going to an independent practice not connected to either of the others.
If there are any practising vets reading this do they think that as a minimum the costs of the unsuccessful operation should be reimbursed? We do not have pet insurance.
With any procedure there are always risks of complications, or that the procedure does not have the desired effect.
It is standard to inform the owner of this on the consent form that is read and signed on the day.
There are no extra qualifications needed to perform a corneal / conjunctival graft. Specialists would generally have better outcomes with any procedure within their chosen specialism, but are more costly. To lie about qualifications would amount to professional misconduct and would be taken very seriously by the RCVS. It would also be daft as it is very easy to check, and is unlikely. That being said, I once had a dentist tell me that he was a specialist in root canals, and he was certainly charging as if he were. I checked, and he did not have any extra qualifications. I called the dental equivalent of the RCVS to make a complaint, and they couldn't see an issue... A vet would be hauled in front of the RCVS for the same.
It is unfortunate that the procedure did not have the desired effect, but is very unlikely that anyone is to blame / any refund is warranted I'm afraid.
If you were to seek a second opinion, I would suggest another ophthalmologist, but it does sound like it would be a waste of time / money IMHO. You can find a list of .opthal.s on the RCVS website.
It is standard to inform the owner of this on the consent form that is read and signed on the day.
There are no extra qualifications needed to perform a corneal / conjunctival graft. Specialists would generally have better outcomes with any procedure within their chosen specialism, but are more costly. To lie about qualifications would amount to professional misconduct and would be taken very seriously by the RCVS. It would also be daft as it is very easy to check, and is unlikely. That being said, I once had a dentist tell me that he was a specialist in root canals, and he was certainly charging as if he were. I checked, and he did not have any extra qualifications. I called the dental equivalent of the RCVS to make a complaint, and they couldn't see an issue... A vet would be hauled in front of the RCVS for the same.
It is unfortunate that the procedure did not have the desired effect, but is very unlikely that anyone is to blame / any refund is warranted I'm afraid.
If you were to seek a second opinion, I would suggest another ophthalmologist, but it does sound like it would be a waste of time / money IMHO. You can find a list of .opthal.s on the RCVS website.
jmsgld said:
With any procedure there are always risks of complications, or that the procedure does not have the desired effect.
It is standard to inform the owner of this on the consent form that is read and signed on the day.
There are no extra qualifications needed to perform a corneal / conjunctival graft. Specialists would generally have better outcomes with any procedure within their chosen specialism, but are more costly. To lie about qualifications would amount to professional misconduct and would be taken very seriously by the RCVS. It would also be daft as it is very easy to check, and is unlikely. That being said, I once had a dentist tell me that he was a specialist in root canals, and he was certainly charging as if he were. I checked, and he did not have any extra qualifications. I called the dental equivalent of the RCVS to make a complaint, and they couldn't see an issue... A vet would be hauled in front of the RCVS for the same.
It is unfortunate that the procedure did not have the desired effect, but is very unlikely that anyone is to blame / any refund is warranted I'm afraid.
If you were to seek a second opinion, I would suggest another ophthalmologist, but it does sound like it would be a waste of time / money IMHO. You can find a list of .opthal.s on the RCVS website.
If he does a lot of them - perhaps to the exclusion of anything else - then he could indeed claim to be a 'specialist' and that could well be why the GDC weren't interested.It is standard to inform the owner of this on the consent form that is read and signed on the day.
There are no extra qualifications needed to perform a corneal / conjunctival graft. Specialists would generally have better outcomes with any procedure within their chosen specialism, but are more costly. To lie about qualifications would amount to professional misconduct and would be taken very seriously by the RCVS. It would also be daft as it is very easy to check, and is unlikely. That being said, I once had a dentist tell me that he was a specialist in root canals, and he was certainly charging as if he were. I checked, and he did not have any extra qualifications. I called the dental equivalent of the RCVS to make a complaint, and they couldn't see an issue... A vet would be hauled in front of the RCVS for the same.
It is unfortunate that the procedure did not have the desired effect, but is very unlikely that anyone is to blame / any refund is warranted I'm afraid.
If you were to seek a second opinion, I would suggest another ophthalmologist, but it does sound like it would be a waste of time / money IMHO. You can find a list of .opthal.s on the RCVS website.
You don't necessarily need a bit of paper to be considered a 'specialist' or, for that matter. an expert witness.
Edited by paintman on Wednesday 30th November 11:33
"Any registered dentist can work in a particular field of dentistry (such as Orthodontics or Oral Surgery),
but only those on our specialist lists can present themselves as specialists. These dentists have met
certain requirements and may, as a result, use the 'specialist title'. Dentists with specialist titles are often
employed as consultants in hospitals, but can work in other settings." GDC
but only those on our specialist lists can present themselves as specialists. These dentists have met
certain requirements and may, as a result, use the 'specialist title'. Dentists with specialist titles are often
employed as consultants in hospitals, but can work in other settings." GDC
They didn't reject a complaint, they simply dissuaded me from making one.
I called the GDC as I thought that they might like to know. They couldn't see an issue, as a root canal was a straightforward procedure that any dentist was capable of. There would have been very little point in making a complaint given that the body that would be dealing with it couldn't see an issue.
I requested referral to a local specialist, proceeded with him, and had no further dealings with the original dentist.
Becoming a specialist involves significant extra studies and demonstration of competence / activity within the field, the cost of the admin (GDC fee) is negligible in terms of the overall cost.
I called the GDC as I thought that they might like to know. They couldn't see an issue, as a root canal was a straightforward procedure that any dentist was capable of. There would have been very little point in making a complaint given that the body that would be dealing with it couldn't see an issue.
I requested referral to a local specialist, proceeded with him, and had no further dealings with the original dentist.
Becoming a specialist involves significant extra studies and demonstration of competence / activity within the field, the cost of the admin (GDC fee) is negligible in terms of the overall cost.
Gassing Station | All Creatures Great & Small | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff