Spokane Valley Animal Hospital

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: As stated numerous times, *** was never left alone and never tried to get at her woundAmazingly enough, the new vet managed to redo the surgery and *** healed completely within three weeksvisits and bandage changes to the new vet compared to more than to this vet, their bandages falling off within an hour on most occasions*** healed with proper careBlaming the owner just because you lack integrity and the ability to admit when you are wrong is unethical.
Sincerely,
*** ***

I am responding to the complaint made against Spokane Valley Animal Hospital3/30/On 3/11/"***" was brought in for examinationUpon examination it wasrecommended and approved by owner for fine needle aspirates of two massesMass on left front legwas described as spindle cell
proliferation which could reflect a possible sarcomaFine needle aspirateof the the mass on the left thigh was suggestive of a lipomaThese results were submitted by MeredithM***, DVM, MS, Diplomate ACVP (clinical pathology)Clinical impression was biopsy andhistopathology should be pursued for further characterizationBiopsy and histopathology are morediagnostic than fine needle aspirates.On 3/15/surgery was scheduled and both masses were excisedThe mass from the left frontleg was submitted to Washington Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory (WADDL) in Pullman Wa.The histologic diagnosis was furunculosis , lymphoplasmac), multifocalchronic , moderate , withregionally extensive dermal fibrosis The explanation of differential diagnosis is explained in thecomments section of the report trom (WADDL)The spindloid cells were attributed to fibrosis andinflammationThe second growh in the flank was removed as a courtesy to the owner as even benignmasses can enlarge and become an issue for patients in the future.When "***" was sent home post surgically the owner was told that she should not be allowedto access the surgical sites for fear of additional inflammation and / or trauma due to licking orscratchingBy the owners own admission '***" was often left without her E-collar on at home .The suture site on the left front leg dehisced after suture removal at two weeks post surgery The skinand surrounding area was reddened and inflamed from obvious self traumaThis observation was post-dehiscence .The owner was told that the area would require refreshing of skin edges and resuturing at a cost ofapproximately $The *** insisted that the hospital was responsible for the *** of thesurgical site.We believe that a lack of proper supervision and care by the owner at home resulted in the failureof the suture lineThis matter has been referred to our insurance carrier for consideration .Kevin J F*, DVM

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:The lack of integrity on the part of this veterinary clinic is reprehensible. "The second growh in the flank was removed as a courtesy to the owner as even benignmasses can enlarge and become an issue for patients in the future." Direct quote from their responseSo if I go in to have surgery to remove one breast due to cancer, the doctor can then remove the other lump "just in case" and then not even inform me? I have never denied *** was without an e collar, as she was never left alone and never tried to get at her woundThe only area in her records where they even mention that *** was trying was the last entry in her records after they removed her stitches too soon and I was holding them accountableThat was more than a month into her care with no issues on our partThey are trying to blame us because they have absolutely no integrity or customer service skillsThat being said, that is not even why I filed the complaintI filed the complaint because they made repeated mistakes with our dogRemoved a second lump without discussion, without even telling us upon discharge, then every bandage they put on her arm (except one) fell off within an hour (amazingly, the new vet has not had this problem) and then when they removed her stitches too soon due to failing to assess her wound properly, they tried to blame the trauma on our dog and our lack of careThis has now become a he said, she said issues, however, we all know the truth
Sincerely,
*** ***

The growth removal in the flank healed without any complications. The surgical site on the front leg was the issue as per the owner.The owner and her family members who brought "[redacted]" in for rechecks were told numerous times that the area must be protected from any licking, scratching, or chewing. These protections were to include bandaging and the wearing of an E-Collar. Failure for proper protection of the surgical site must be the responsibility of the owner as the dog spent the vast majority of her recovery time under the owners care.As previously mentioned this matter has been referred to our insurance carrier for evaluation.