From the article:
“The regulator said that Baker is subject to disciplinary action for prescribing, dispensing, or administering a drug, medication, appliance, application, or treatment to animal patients without performing an examination and forming a diagnosis of any condition that required treatment.”
[bolding is mine]
“The 79-page report and order says that “clusters of equine patients were administered identical medications and treatments, at the same time, at the request of their trainers without medical examinations or necessity.””
This does not seem to me excellent veterinary practice. It seems to me like trainers being given blank slates to give any of the horses anything they want.
Equine DVMs aren’t being asked to do anything a competent practitioner isn’t capable of doing.
Small animal practitioners/food animal DVMs have managed to keep decent records for years.
We all learned how to do it in school.
State boards across the country have been cracking down on inadequate record-keeping.
In my state, the board sent out a reminder that anyone with a license is required to keep adequate records, with a “we’re looking at you, equine practitioners” slant to it.
My issue is not accurate medical records. I have no problem with that. My issue is calling such benign medications dangerous and unnecessary, and having the Peta minions and everyone else who hasnt a clue running with it and causing more harm to an already under fire sport.
One.More.Time.
California LAW classifies all prescription medications as such:
“Dangerous drug” or “dangerous device” means any drug or device unsafe for self-use in humans or animals, and includes the following: (a) Any drug that bears the legend: “Caution: federal law prohibits dispensing without prescription,” “Rx only,” or words of similar import."
I would hazard a guess that the “unnecessary” is there because the DVM couldn’t be arsed to put a rationale for said treatment in the “medical records” that were presented to the VMB.
They are apparently concerned about the possibility of blood glucose crashes and ensuing collapsing horses and wrecks in horse exercising at high intensity.
Additionally, it appears to have performance-enhancing proerties in a small human study:
"National Institutes of Health published a study indicating it has an effect on athletic performance. In a study of 10 men, they determined that “time to exhaustion was significantly higher after metformin than placebo ingestion,” and that “metformin improved performance and anaerobic alactic contribution during high-intensity exercise.” "
Thanks. I’m on it (mild insulin resistance), and one of the warnings is to watch for signs of glucose crashing. Definitely not something you want happening to a horse, especially mid-race.
Form the Paulick article
“On April 16, 2023, records from Equine Medical Center show that Havnameltdown received injections of Hyvisc and Celestone in his stifles, and injections of Hyvisc and Kenalog in his hocks, in addition to Banamine, torbugesic and dromosedan.”
Poor Havnameltdown…doesn’t sound like this poor horse was in anyway race fit.
I get it, but the reality of a racetrack vet isn’t like a clinic, where there are appointments and people check out and it’s all very organized. My local track currently has only 2 vets groups serving the whole backside, and one of those is a sole practitioner. They don’t have time to examine every patient and have an assistant key all the data in a device while riding around in a bumpy truck all day long. They’re not being lazy, they just…can’t. They can either cruise by and handle many, or do in-depth on everything they see, leaving most of the horses without vet care. I don’t know what the answer is, hire more vets sounds good but fewer want to be equine vets, and fewer of those want to work the tracks. Who can blame them, with all the breakdowns, low pay, long hours working out of a truck, and crabby opinionated trainers? Legal trouble for bad record keeping is about the nail in the coffin for racetrack vets, I figure.
Solo ambulatory practice, on or off the track, is, by its very nature, chaotic.
I doubt the regulatory authroities will see that as an acceptable excuse though.
It’s not quite that binary a choice. There are levels of depth to an exam, and they depend on the nature of the presenting “problem”, as well as the timeframe from the last visit, etc.
For example, if doing a PE on a regular patient as a prelude to vaccinating, if the owner/rainer does not voice any concerns, it’s a relatively quick check of vital signs, and running hands over the beast to look for any glaring problems.
Takes less than 5 minutes once you work out a routine.
And if I go back a week later to do more vaccines, it’s a brief check of vital signs and a query as to whether ther were any issues from the previous vax, or is there anything new that needs to be looked at.
It’s not like anyone is expected to do an in depth neurological exam on every horse one sees.
A quick notation of the vital signs, any concerns, and treatment administered can be made on a day sheet and transcribed into the main record later.
(BTW, lots of small animal clinicians do their medical records at the end of the day
after dealing with scheduled appointments, emergencies, and complaining clients all day–another reason they’re getting burnt out.)
Well, looks like racing has dug itself a hole, there. Maybe paying more and bitching less would help, eh?
Could be, but I sincerely doubt that exempting track vets from keeping adequate medical records is going to increase the number of DVMs entering equine practice.
And I don’t see that as something that would be acceptable either to the public or to the regulatory authorities, either.
He was quoted in the beginning as saying he would “take it all the way to the supreme court”. A combination of ego and financial resources, but good luck with that one.
