draggonlaady (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
draggonlaady) wrote2009-12-01 06:33 pm
draggonlaady) wrote2009-12-01 06:33 pm
Ever wonder
why the veterinarian doesn't want you to hold your own animal during procedures? Here's why:
Dr Y was presented a cat for dyspnea. A staff member attempted to place an oxygen mask on the cat while the owner held the pet. On the first attempt, the cat bit the oxygen tubing. On the second attempt, the cat bit the owner.A technician administered first aid to the ownre and then placed the cat in an oxygen chamber. Dr Y continued with treatment. The next day, the owner sought medical treatment and was given a tetanus shot and antibiotics. The owner experienced severe swelling and was hospitalized for five days to treat cellulitis caused by the cat bite. After leaving the hospital, the owner received physical therapy. The owner hired an attorney and demanded $85,000 alleging that Dr Y and the practice staff were negligent. Dr Y's insurance carrier determined that it was below the standard of care to have the owner restrain the cat during treatment, and Dr Y consented to settle the case. After several offers and counter-offers, the case settled and Dr Y's insurance carrier reimbursed the owner $20,000 for medical expenses related to the cat bite.
Please note, this is not anybody that I know. It was a reminder sent out by my insurance carrier. Though it could very easily be anybody--owners are VERY insistent on holding their own pets, and especially if you're short handed its very tempting to let them instead of waiting for an assistant to be free.
Dr Y was presented a cat for dyspnea. A staff member attempted to place an oxygen mask on the cat while the owner held the pet. On the first attempt, the cat bit the oxygen tubing. On the second attempt, the cat bit the owner.A technician administered first aid to the ownre and then placed the cat in an oxygen chamber. Dr Y continued with treatment. The next day, the owner sought medical treatment and was given a tetanus shot and antibiotics. The owner experienced severe swelling and was hospitalized for five days to treat cellulitis caused by the cat bite. After leaving the hospital, the owner received physical therapy. The owner hired an attorney and demanded $85,000 alleging that Dr Y and the practice staff were negligent. Dr Y's insurance carrier determined that it was below the standard of care to have the owner restrain the cat during treatment, and Dr Y consented to settle the case. After several offers and counter-offers, the case settled and Dr Y's insurance carrier reimbursed the owner $20,000 for medical expenses related to the cat bite.
Please note, this is not anybody that I know. It was a reminder sent out by my insurance carrier. Though it could very easily be anybody--owners are VERY insistent on holding their own pets, and especially if you're short handed its very tempting to let them instead of waiting for an assistant to be free.
no subject
Its funny though, when I'm at the vet with a shelter animal, I'm used to doing my own tech-ing for most things. But when I'm there with my own animal, I always expect a clinic tech to be there.
no subject
Yes, well, if you're doing it as part of your job, then it's a hazard of the job you accepted with the job. If you're there as the owner, that doesn't apply at all. It's why I can irradiate techs but not owners ;)