An eight-and-a-half-year-old dog was taken to a veterinarian by its owner to have a suspected infection treated. The dog was admitted as an in-patient at the clinic, and multiple veterinarians were responsible for different stages of the case management.

A veterinarian performed an ultrasound, which confirmed an open pyometra. The veterinarian discussed treatment options with the dog’s owner, which included a recommendation for hospitalisation and an ovariohysterectomy, or alternatively, medical treatment and then an ovariohysterectomy a few months later.

The owner opted for medical treatment and a treatment plan was agreed on, which included – hospitalisation, intravenous fluid therapy, antibiotics, and two injections of Alizin.

Later that day, the veterinarian received a call from the owner asking for an update on the dog’s condition, and a request for a second opinion. The veterinarian explained that the owner would need to seek a second opinion from another veterinarian that same day, given how serious the animal’s condition was. The owner collected the dog from the clinic and the veterinarian instructed them to seek another opinion as soon as possible, and said they could forward the clinical records.

Two days later, the veterinarian contacted the SPCA because they suspected that the owner had not sought veterinary care as a request for records had not been received. Later that day, an SPCA inspector visited the owner to do a welfare check on the dog.

The owner made a complaint to the Vet Council about the veterinarian’s communication. They raised concerns that the veterinarian had unnecessarily contacted the SPCA and that they had made a false report about the dog.

The complaint was referred to the Complaints Assessment Committee (CAC). The CAC is a preliminary screening body, which decides what should happen next with a complaint. The CAC can conduct a formal investigation and decide what steps, if any, need to be taken to ensure the veterinarian is fit to practise and public interest is protected.

The Code of Professional Conduct outlines that all veterinarians must comply and be familiar with the Animal Welfare Act 1999. Veterinarians must not ignore situations if they suspect the requirements of the Act are not being met by colleagues or animal owners.

In situations where veterinarians are not confident that an owner will follow through on obtaining a second opinion and the animal may suffer, the Professional Relationships part of the Code sets out that they may put a time limit on gaining the second opinion, after which an animal welfare inspector will be notified.

The decision to disclose client information and details when reporting suspected breaches of the Animal Welfare Act 1999 to the appropriate authorities can be made when there are valid reasons under Privacy Principle 11. If veterinarians are unsure, they are encouraged to chat to the Vet Council or the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) Animal Welfare team.

The veterinarian contacted the SPCA and asked about a welfare check to ensure the dog was receiving appropriate veterinary care. In their response to the CAC, the veterinarian said they were not confident the owner would seek a second veterinary opinion, and they were concerned about the serious nature of the dog’s condition.

In the view of the CAC, it was appropriate for the veterinarian to request the owner seek immediate veterinary care that same day. The dog had only received one Alizin injection and it was important that the full course of antibiotics and treatment was administered, particularly because the owner had chosen medical management when presented with different options.

The Code requires veterinarians to act immediately to remedy situations if they suspect unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress in animals, or possible breaches of animal welfare legislation. Veterinarians should use their professional judgment when deciding to directly intervene or report a matter. In this particular case, the animal had a confirmed diagnosis of pyometra and the veterinarian was concerned about whether they were under the care of a new veterinarian. The CAC acknowledged that the clinic did not receive a request for the clinical records, which would be expected if another veterinarian was taking over the management of a case.

In the view of the CAC, and in accordance with the requirements of the Code and animal welfare legislation, it was acceptable for the veterinarian to contact the SPCA and provide it with the animal owner’s contact information.

Ideally, there should be a clear line of communication between a veterinarian and client so they can work together to resolve any animal welfare related concerns directly. Veterinarians play a role in ensuring that high standards of animal welfare are upheld, and that clients are aware of their obligations under the relevant legislation. Where this is not possible, the Code and the Animal Welfare Act 1999 allow a veterinarian to make a report to a welfare inspector.

The CAC acknowledged that the veterinarian was acting with the best interests of the animal in mind and commended their proactive approach.

The CAC decided no further action was needed as the veterinarian had acted in a way that would be reasonably expected of a competent veterinarian.

While veterinarians are not strictly required to notify a client of a potential breach of the Animal Welfare Act 1999, there are some situations where veterinarians play a role in educating clients about their responsibilities. The CAC believed that there were some learnings for the profession that could be taken from this case.

When veterinarians suspect an animal welfare issue, they could email the client a summary of their discussion, identify any potential welfare issues, and advise them to seek a second veterinary opinion.

If there are welfare concerns, wording could be included that if the original veterinarian does not receive a request for clinical records, they may need to contact the appropriate authority. By documenting this process, the veterinarian has a clear record of the discussion and the client has written instructions to refer to.