I’m pretty sure an annual physical exam to establish a valid veterinarian-client-patient relationship is required by law here before dispensing any medications. Either way, we require it. If you don’t want a physical exam, go to a vaccine clinic.
Pets are brought into the back for all the reasons BuddyRoo stated, PLUS the fact that it is a giant liability to let owners assist in the restraining of their own pets. Like kids, they’re better behaved away from their owners.
There are some dogs that need their owners present to make sure the vet stays safe. Owned a very smart, screw loose dobe for 10 yrs that was well trained but he had a screw loose. The vet always allowed me to stay with him. He would be perfectly behaved under those circumstances.
I now have an older GSD that was a top Schuzhund dog when young with a different owner. This dog turns into a terrible basket case at the vet. He won’t eat for days after. His digestive problems get worst, they are bad anyway. So he doesn’t go to the vet hardly at all. The stress is too much.
It’s all individual. What’s right for one is not right for another.
[QUOTE=pezk;8676039]
There are some dogs that need their owners present to make sure the vet stays safe. Owned a very smart, screw loose dobe for 10 yrs that was well trained but he had a screw loose. The vet always allowed me to stay with him. He would be perfectly behaved under those circumstances.
I now have an older GSD that was a top Schuzhund dog when young with a different owner. This dog turns into a terrible basket case at the vet. He won’t eat for days after. His digestive problems get worst, they are bad anyway. So he doesn’t go to the vet hardly at all. The stress is too much.
It’s all individual. What’s right for one is not right for another.[/QUOTE]
Agree. And I think that most veterinary practices are capable of making accommodations as needed to make sure that the pet has the best possible outcome.
However…you knew there would be one ;)…HOWEVER…the average pet owner is pretty much an idiot when it comes to being able to restrain or assist. Hell, I’ve trimmed a lot of horses who would’ve behaved better if the owner had been wholly absent for all the help they were giving (while texting or FBing or whatever and not paying attention). Most pet owners suck at this and many are anxious to the point that they amp up their pet.
But like you, I wish that more clinics would assess the pet/owner situation individually rather than just having a “policy” of taking pets back.
[QUOTE=BuddyRoo;8676048]
Agree. And I think that most veterinary practices are capable of making accommodations as needed to make sure that the pet has the best possible outcome.
However…you knew there would be one ;)…HOWEVER…the average pet owner is pretty much an idiot when it comes to being able to restrain or assist. Hell, I’ve trimmed a lot of horses who would’ve behaved better if the owner had been wholly absent for all the help they were giving (while texting or FBing or whatever and not paying attention). Most pet owners suck at this and many are anxious to the point that they amp up their pet.
But like you, I wish that more clinics would assess the pet/owner situation individually rather than just having a “policy” of taking pets back.[/QUOTE]
Oh heck Buddyroo, my mare is sometimes better for the farrier if I walk away from her. She thinks she’s a princess.
As far as small animal vets, developing a relationship with 1 vet can be so important. They come to know the owner and the animal well. Like with that dobe. That’s why it’s so hard to change vets. Also why I don’t like team vetting unless it’s an emergency.
[QUOTE=pezk;8676084]
Oh heck Buddyroo, my mare is sometimes better for the farrier if I walk away from her. She thinks she’s a princess.
As far as small animal vets, developing a relationship with 1 vet can be so important. They come to know the owner and the animal well. Like with that dobe. That’s why it’s so hard to change vets. Also why I don’t like team vetting unless it’s an emergency.[/QUOTE]
Agree. The relationship is key. Because I’ve moved so much the last few years, it’s been hard to create a relationship with a local vet for long and it sucks. I remember the days when I had an ill dog and the vet was all “come in and assist”. And let me do most of the nursing care at home because she knew ME and US. Now? Just the other day I literally had to wait 2 hours at the vet for them to put some ear meds in my dog because they wouldn’t let me do it and there had been some emergencies in. I could’ve done it in two seconds. Sigh.
[QUOTE=horsenut_8700;8676009]
I’m pretty sure an annual physical exam to establish a valid veterinarian-client-patient relationship is required by law here before dispensing any medications. [/QUOTE]
Exactly. It is actually in the code of ethics that there be a valid VCPR before dispensing any prescription meds (such as heartworm prevention). Which generally implies a once-yearly exam. Yearly HW tests are also considered standard. Not providing dewormer over the counter… I’d say that’s unusual, but you can get it at a pet shop. Not providing a written script… again, I’d say unusual.
I worked at a clinic for years that did not bring the pets to the back. After working there, I have no idea why taking the pet back would be standard practice at any clinic. As a rule, pets were better with their owners there. Owners were generally perfectly fine with our restraint (including muzzling) and there was very little manhandling. Owners that were squeamish about needles are generally happy to excuse themselves. If an owner made the pet worse (very rare, but it happens), we could usually explain why we thought it would be better if they were not there. And most were very happy to oblige. Yes, you would get the crazy, irrational owner that would not allow us to muzzle their aggressive dog (they were given the option of muzzling or finding a different clinic). We regularly used towels and gloves with aggressive cats in front of their owners–honestly, if you are restraining them correctly, it should not be a traumatic experience for the owner to watch. If it is, the cat probably needs a sedated exam. Some owners would get upset when you restrained their animal or poked them with needles (we would invite them to wait outside, which again, most were OK with). But most of these people were happy to have the opportunity to talk to their pet while things were being done. And I think the pets were happier, too.
This generally didn’t add that much more time to what we did, and it built a lot of good-will between the clients and the clinic. And, especially for the fearful animals, I think we were able to do things with much less trauma than if we took them to the back and forced them. And as a tech, if given the choice, I would rather do the majority of these things in the room with the owner. If only for the pet’s sake.
But, yes, owners handling their own animals is a liability (if they get bit, they can sue the clinic). This is not the same in equine, where owners are expected to have some knowledge of the animals and thus an understanding of the risk, and the clinician is generally not at-risk if the handler is injured during a procedure. So except for rare cases, owners were not allowed to participate in the restraint process.
From Eventer13
“But, yes, owners handling their own animals is a liability (if they get bit, they can sue the clinic). This is not the same in equine, where owners are expected to have some knowledge of the animals and thus an understanding of the risk, and the clinician is generally not at-risk if the handler is injured during a procedure. So except for rare cases, owners were not allowed to participate in the restraint process.”
Why do you think it is that horse vets and owners, for the most part, are expected to assist and help in restraining the animal, and to understand what is going on, but small animal vets are far more reluctant to have the owner participate in the
Exam/ procedure of the dog etc.? Where did that difference ever come from?
[QUOTE=pezk;8676258]
From Eventer13
“But, yes, owners handling their own animals is a liability (if they get bit, they can sue the clinic). This is not the same in equine, where owners are expected to have some knowledge of the animals and thus an understanding of the risk, and the clinician is generally not at-risk if the handler is injured during a procedure. So except for rare cases, owners were not allowed to participate in the restraint process.”
Why do you think it is that horse vets and owners, for the most part, are expected to assist and help in restraining the animal, and to understand what is going on, but small animal vets are far more reluctant to have the owner participate in the
Exam/ procedure of the dog etc.? Where did that difference ever come from?[/QUOTE]
Lawyers.
Partly kidding.
the general view is that we are the professionals, and ought to know when something is liable to set an animal off.
Interestingly, perhaps, if your dog bites me, or your horse kicks me, I can’t sue you.
Large animal vets have been successfully sued for injuries sustained by owners during procedures. I anticipate the trend will continue.
Given the decline in horsemanship among owners I’ve seen in my career, I would hire a tech if I went back to general practice.
That way, I know the person restraining/assissting is competent.
My small animal vet takes my dog to the back for shots, ear cleaning, blood draws, etc. And I welcome them to do that. I trust my vets, and just as importantly, I trust the techs. They used to do stuff in the exam room and then all of a sudden they started doing it in the back and I didn’t even think to question it. I’ve got 1 dog with chronic ear infections and it’s much easier for them to take her in the back and do her ears on a table that they can roll right up to a sink and wash off after they are done. And my other dog is large, and only tolerates strange people for a short time, so I’m fairly sure that when they take her in the back, they are probably putting a muzzle on her and have about 3 people to restrain her. I don’t have a problem with any of that, because I think the vets and techs need to keep themselves safe more than anything else.
And really, same with my large animal vet. My vet prefers to have his techs handle the horses for things other than shots, because they know how he likes to have them positioned for various procedures. For something like regular shots, I just hold them. If the tech steps up and holds her hand out, I gladly hand over the lead. It gets things done much faster and again, I totally trust the both of them. Heck, I’ve had to have the vet out when I had to work, and I don’t have a problem with them being there without me.
I think that if you don’t trust your vet, large or small animal, then you should look around for other vets. It all comes down to trust.
My vet also will not give out prescription meds if they have not see the animal in the past year. But, for my dog with the chronic ear problems, they will give me a standing prescription for the meds that we use to manage that, because they know me and know how long we have dealt with ear problems and they trust ME to call them if there are any changes or something doesn’t look right.
[QUOTE=Ghazzu;8676278]
Lawyers.
Partly kidding.
the general view is that we are the professionals, and ought to know when something is liable to set an animal off.
Interestingly, perhaps, if your dog bites me, or your horse kicks me, I can’t sue you.
Large animal vets have been successfully sued for injuries sustained by owners during procedures. I anticipate the trend will continue.
Given the decline in horsemanship among owners I’ve seen in my career, I would hire a tech if I went back to general practice.
That way, I know the person restraining/assissting is competent.[/QUOTE]
NO KIDDING. The lack of horsemanship in the majority of today’s horse owners is why I am no longer in equine practice…
[QUOTE=pezk;8676258]
From Eventer13
“But, yes, owners handling their own animals is a liability (if they get bit, they can sue the clinic). This is not the same in equine, where owners are expected to have some knowledge of the animals and thus an understanding of the risk, and the clinician is generally not at-risk if the handler is injured during a procedure. So except for rare cases, owners were not allowed to participate in the restraint process.”
Why do you think it is that horse vets and owners, for the most part, are expected to assist and help in restraining the animal, and to understand what is going on, but small animal vets are far more reluctant to have the owner participate in the
Exam/ procedure of the dog etc.? Where did that difference ever come from?[/QUOTE]
Horses don’t generally bite when they’re unhappy and cause major infections like dogs and cats can. It’s much easier, the larger the animal, to stay out of harm’s way. Horses are generally treated like animals rather than babies and typically are less “fear bitey” and cagey about being treated than some smaller pets.
And in general, horse owners are typically less accommodating to poor behavior than small pet owners. In general.
Whether it’s because they have skin in the game or they’re just more jaded, horse people seem to be less tolerant of bad behavior in their critters.
We have cameras througout our clinic. Not in surgery or exam rooms but in hallways, pharmacy and treatment areas.
[QUOTE=BuddyRoo;8676371]
Horses don’t generally bite when they’re unhappy and cause major infections like dogs and cats can. It’s much easier, the larger the animal, to stay out of harm’s way. Horses are generally treated like animals rather than babies and typically are less “fear bitey” and cagey about being treated than some smaller pets.
And in general, horse owners are typically less accommodating to poor behavior than small pet owners. In general.
Whether it’s because they have skin in the game or they’re just more jaded, horse people seem to be less tolerant of bad behavior in their critters.[/QUOTE]
Not any more. At least in my area.
[QUOTE=roseymare;8676380]
Not any more. At least in my area.[/QUOTE]
There’s a reason I don’t trim outside horses any more. This is it. But I was trying to be kind. 
LOL
Seriously though, horses tend to be a lot easier to handle–even the douchiest amongst them–than say, a cat having a bad day at the clinic.
In order of critters I want to deal with?
Horses
Big dogs
little dogs
cats
God I hate dealing with cats.
[QUOTE=BuddyRoo;8676371]
Horses don’t generally bite when they’re unhappy and cause major infections like dogs and cats can. It’s much easier, the larger the animal, to stay out of harm’s way. Horses are generally treated like animals rather than babies and typically are less “fear bitey” and cagey about being treated than some smaller pets.
And in general, horse owners are typically less accommodating to poor behavior than small pet owners. In general.
Whether it’s because they have skin in the game or they’re just more jaded, horse people seem to be less tolerant of bad behavior in their critters.[/QUOTE]
Yes I can see where most horse people are just less tolerant of lousy behavior than many dog owners. So I suppose sm animal vets are more cautious in dealing with dog owners and their “fur babies”. Makes sense.
[QUOTE=roseymare;8676375]
We have cameras througout our clinic. Not in surgery or exam rooms but in hallways, pharmacy and treatment areas.[/QUOTE]
For what purpose? I’m assume this is aimed at owners not just burglars stealing drugs.
And why would treatment and examine rooms be excluded? Wouldn’t having them there be for your own protection against lawsuits etc?
I find this interesting. I have always gone back with my animals. I would rather they took care of the cats, but alas, I am there and usually the vet tells me how to hold them. I hate that!
[QUOTE=DrBeckett;8675777]
If you ask for a script for meds, they have to give it to you. It’s the law.[/QUOTE]
Not true. I can’t ask my doctor for a prescription without him seeing me first. We are the same way. We have to have Doctor/patient relationship before we script anything that requires a prescription. OP probably never realized that because she had a DP relationship with her previous vet. She must have one with the new vet to get a prescription.
I don’t believe we can have them in the exam rooms because we would have to have every clients permission to film. Lobbies are fair game as are employee areas as all employees are told they are on camera. It is for safety as well as loss prevention. But it has taken the wind out of some complainers sails when we offer to let them see the tape of us handling their pets. Only happens once in a blue moon but they sure aren’t expecting transparency!
[QUOTE=Belmont;8676585]
Not true. I can’t ask my doctor for a prescription without him seeing me first. We are the same way. We have to have Doctor/patient relationship before we script anything that requires a prescription. OP probably never realized that because she had a DP relationship with her previous vet. She must have one with the new vet to get a prescription.[/QUOTE]
I think DrBeckett is saying that if they are ordering the medication (i.e. after exam) they have to write a script if you ask – as opposed to requiring you buy it from them.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
