Veterinary Emergency Clinic, Inc.

Dear Ms***I am writing a second response to a client complaint, filed 2-17-Re: ID ***.I have already written a thorough summary of our clinical treatment of her dog at our facility with detailed responses to each and every complaint that she has enumeratedThis was sent 1.23.17.Client's rebuttal to my statement offers no additional information that requires a response from our facilityClient disagrees with my summary of the medical diagnostics and care provided for her dog, as documented in our medical recordsAs such, there is really no further discussion that will be fruitful through the Revdex.com.On behalf of the medical care team at Pittsburgh Veterinary Specialty and Emergency, and the specific practices noted - namely Veterinary Emergency Clinic, Incand Bridget Pittsburgh Veterinary Surgery, P.C., we feel that the care provided for this client and her Pet was consistent with the high level of medical care and communication that our hospital prides itself in practicingWe see no justification for this client's complaint We stand by the original response sent 1-23-17.Sincerely, Anthony DP***, MS, DVMDiplomate American College of Veterinary Surgeons Medical DirectorPittsburgh Veterinary Specialty and Emergency Center*** *** *** *** *** ** ***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
This is in response to the correspondence dated February 20, 2017, from PVSEC in response to my rebuttal submitted on January 29, 2017, and forwarded to the business on February 17th.  In his February 20th correspondence, the business owner states that he wrote a thorough summary of the treatment of my dog and a detailed response to each and every complaint I raised when he responded to it on January 23rd.  This is incorrect.  As I pointed out in my rebuttal, his response was riddled with inaccuracies, discrepancies, and misrepresentations.  As I also clearly pointed out in my rebuttal, the response in multiple areas did not address what were the complaints.  Lastly, it raised even more questions in that he presents treatment having occurred that we never agreed to and that was not necessary, per the information provided to us in person by his staff on January 9th.  The business owner states that I offer no additional information that requires response.  This too is untrue.  In my rebuttal, I pointed out the inaccuracies as well as the complaints he did not respond to, and I also asked for clarification that is now necessary because some of the information he presented in his response is not consistent with what actually occurred; it does not make sense; and/or it is false. He claims that his business feels they provided care that is consistent with the high level of medical care and communication they pride themselves in practicing and sees no justification for my complaint.  I disagree, and this is the central basis for my complaint to which he has yet to respond with truthful, accurate, and on point information.  We did not receive a high level of communication as he claims, and his own staff acknowledged that when they told me that there was no explanation for how my dog’s condition, given the severity of it, was not identified during diagnostic testing and by admitting that they could have provided a better explanation of the limitations of the testing.  I’m not certain to what high level of treatment he is referencing.  We went to his facility to receive diagnostic testing that would allow us to know what was wrong with our dog definitively and to seek sound advice upon which we could make an informed decision as to what were the best next steps for our 11 ½ year old dog.  What we received was a recommendation to proceed with surgery to remove the mass to stop him from bleeding after which we could further address what was the cause, such as if it was cancer.  Instead, what happened was we were forced to decide to put him to sleep just a few hours later because of the severity of his disease that was not properly identified, and we had to do so without having a chance to say goodbye to him.  Then, we were charged over $3,100 for it, an amount which includes procedures that we did not agree to (to include exploratory surgery) and that were unnecessary based on the information we were provided (to include a blood transfusion).  This is not about a disagreement with his summary which he says is supported by the records, but instead it is about the fact that he is misrepresenting what occurred.  I have the records and they do not support fully what he attempts to put forth as the truth, and I also have the first-hand knowledge of what actually took place between the two staff members that my husband and I dealt with in person and over the phone.  He does not have that knowledge and beginning with his call he placed to me on January 11th continuing through his two responses to my complaint, he has repeatedly provided accounts of what occurred that were incorrect and not truthful.   He states in his February 20th correspondence that further discussions through the Revdex.com will not be fruitful.  I attempted to first resolve this matter with his business during the phone call I placed to them and during the call he elected to make to me two days after my dog died; a call that was harassing because of his attempts to get me to acknowledge that even if his business had given me more information, I would have taken the same course of action with my dog.  However, he refused to consider my request, so I have no choice but to take action through other avenues that are available for me as a consumer.  Therefore, it is not up to him to decide if I will or will not continue to pursue this complaint through the Revdex.com process or other services that exist to protect consumers from unprofessional, dishonest, and unethical business practices.  
Regards,
[redacted]

Dr. Ms. [redacted]:   I am responding to a complaint from a client of our hospital, assigned ID #[redacted], made against the Veterinary Emergency Clinic, Inc. (VEC), one of the businesses operating under the hospital name of Pittsburgh Veterinary Specialty and Emergency Center (PVSEC). As...

requested, the client [redacted] was refunded for $1091.00 by check on November 13 2017.   We ask at this time that the claim be withdraw.   Thank you,   Lauren F[redacted] Executive Assistance Office: ###-###-#### Tell us why here...

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 
Regards,
[redacted]

Dear Ms. [redacted]:I am responding to a complaint from the client of our hospital, assigned ID # [redacted], made against the Veterinary Emergency Clinic, Inc. (VEC), one of the businesses operating under the hospital name of Pittsburgh Veterinary Specialty and Emergency Center (PVSEC). I am the medical...

director of this facility and also an owner of Pittsburgh Veterinary Surgery, P.C., the business entity that operates the surgical services for this hospital. VEC provides the emergency services for PVSEC.The client claims that she was not properly informed regarding the nature of the testing that was done on her dog, and that she subsequently agreed to a surgery based on that testing that was not successful in saving her dog. She claims that she might have made a different decision if she had been informed more thoroughly. She wants restitution for the costs of the surgery, because she might not have agreed to it if otherwise informed. There are a number of other complaints from her regarding the activities that happened that night at the hospital surrounding the care of her dog.I would like to respond to this complaint point by point:1. First of all, we at the hospital are very sorry that we could not resolve her pet's condition and that he had to be euthanized for disseminated cancer. We deal with a large number of very sick pets and understand the loss that their families feel when their beloved companions die or are euthanized. We are pet owners ourselves and have suffered similar losses and felt the same pain.2. This client's pet was presented for evaluation of weakness, and enlarged belly full of fresh blood and severe anemia. Their family veterinarian suspected a tumor on the spleen. The emergency doctor who saw this pet discussed with the owners that additional testing would be needed to see where the blood was coming from in the abdomen. An ultrasound exam was recommended for that purpose to evaluate the liver, spleen and other organs for masses. X-rays of the chest were recommended to see if there was any evidence that a cancer had spread to the lungs. The client agree to this plan and the costs associated with it. The chest was noted to be clean. The ultrasound exam showed a mass in the spleen that was bleeding. The emergency veterinarian discussed that this mass was one of two possible causes, two thirds likely that it was a cancer called hemangiosarcoma, andthe other 1/3 that it was a hematoma (blood clot). She informed the that the ultrasound did not identify other masses outside the spleen. This led to a conclusion that their dog could have an exploratory surgery to remove the spleen and to evaluate the abdomen thoroughly visually. Our surgical resident then had a thorough discussion again, reiterating the same things.The surgical resident indicates to me that she informed the owner that she would like to have her available by phone in the event that something was found at surgery that was not seen on ultrasound. She further states that when asked why this would be necessary, she explained with an example that there could be masses that are hidden where they could not be seen or that are too small to be seen on ultrasound. In other words, the client was informed that sometimes, cancer is seen at surgery that was not expected based on the testing done. There was no questioning at that time from the client about this and she authorized the surgery. At no time was there any intent to deceive or otherwise not fully disclose what was found or what was being done.3. During surgery, performed by a board certified surgeon, multiple small masses were found throughout the abdomen that apparently were smaller than could be resolved on the ultrasound exam, and they were also bleeding.This confirmed that the spleen mass was indeed cancerous and had spread.The owner was indeed called during the surgery and informed that there was cancer spread widely and that their dog could not survive this. The surgical resident informed me that she called the client and made the comment that "this was one of the worst cases of spread that she had seen", to the owner, because she was trying to make sure she understood how serious this was and because it was a little surprising given the ultrasound exam did not show it. A senior, board certified surgeon had already confirmed the findings. The client's claim that we did not give her enough information regarding the ultrasound exam specifications is unfounded. We do not expect our clients to understand all of the specific details of a technical piece of equipment. We do try to explain the limitations of tests and that is why the surgeon informed her that she should be available by phone in the event that a phone call needed to be made regarding additional findings. This is very common with bleeding tumors in the abdomen.4. Client complains that we are misleading her regarding the presence of surgeons on site that night. In fact, we have a surgeon and resident on call every night of the year for emergency surgery. They are not "on duty", they are on call and come in after hours for emergencies. In fact, that night, four patients with bleeding tumors in the abdomen were operated after-hours.These surgeons had in fact been there the day before for regular appointments and surgery, and were now coming in to operate these four dogs on an on-call basis.5. Client complains that she did not get a call the next day to discuss how the remains were to be handled. She indicates that she called in at around 2 pmthat day. I apologize if we mislead her about when she would be call usually our policy to try to resolve these details promptly. I do believe we did resolve them when she called in that day at 2 pm.6. Client complains about the "lost collar". The CSR that handled the call should have indicated that they would find it, instead of stating that she did not know where it was. However, as is usually the case, it was promptly found and has been mailed to her.7. Client claims that we denied her access to her invoices. That is absolutely not consistent with any practice at our hospital. She might have been told that charges were not completed and entered in the computer, but never that we would not send it to her. In fact, shortly thereafter, all materials regarding her pet's care were emailed to her as requested.8. Client claims that Medical director was argumentative with her regarding the decisions made based on ultrasound. At no time was I argumentative. My discussion was focused on trying to understand what else she wanted to hear about the testing done the night before in order to try to understand what decisions she would have made with more details. I was not trying to make her answer in a particular way. I was simply trying to understand what would have changed the chain of events of the night before. I have tried to go through the decision making tree and clarify that her dog's condition that night was critical and required a difficult decision from the owner to take him to surgery, or that he was going to bleed to death. Client further makes a wrong statement that I did not know the blood count of her dog that night.There is a 1% difference in what she remembers being told and what she claims that I said. Suffice it to say that whether the number was 24% or 25%, it represents severe anemia in a dog. The chart shows a recorded blood count of 24%, which is what I quoted her.In summary:Client's pet was presented to our facility at 6:41pm with severe bleeding in the abdomen, a common presenting complaint at our emergency and specialty hospital.We are staffed 24/7/365 with ER doctors and have specialists in 14 disciplines available for consultations on varied conditions. Our surgeons are available 24/7/365, on call for emergency surgery and we responded as such that night for her pet as well as 3 others in similar conditions that required emergency surgery. All owners are informed as to the possibility that in spite of high tech equipment and well trained ultrasonographers, that sometimes it is not possible to see metastatic "spots" in the abdomen prior to seeing them in surgery with the abdomen open.Those that are seen on ultrasound prior to surgery, are so advised and we do not operate them. In this dog's case, nothing that was clearly cancerous, was seen on the ultrasound exam.This pet was stabilized and received a blood transfusion prior to anesthesia, and was taken to the operating room at 10:00 pm.The charges that were incurred are routine and consistent with the costs as with this level of emergency staffing and medical care at a top specialty a emergency center.I do not believe that this client was misinformed at any time during the briefhospitalization of her pet. It is always unfortunate when we cannot correct a pet s condition and have to make a decision to euthanize while under anesthesia.However, this does not change the fact that significant costs were incurred in pursuing the option to treat this client's pet.Based on a careful review of the medical record and conversations with all of the medical personnel involved in this dog's care, there was no deviation from the high standards of care that we pride ourselves in providing. Therefore, we are going to respectfully decline to refund the costs incurred in the care of her pet.Sincerely,Anthony D. P[redacted] MS, DVMDiplomate, American College of Veterinary Surgeons Medical DirectorPittsburgh Veterinary Specialty and Emergency Center [redacted]

Review: I took my ferret, [redacted] to the emergency clinic on 11/10/13 because he presented with a rash and was very lethargic. He saw Dr. [redacted] and she stated that he was having ulcerative dermatitis, dehydration, respiratory difficulty, and an immune mediated disease. She gave us the option of hospitalizing him or taking him home with medicine. I decided along with my daughter to take him home with medicine. Dr. [redacted] treated him at the clinic and then prescribed him with two medications: Clavamox and Buprenorphine. The directions on both state to give both medicines to him 2 x day for 7 days. As of 11/15/13, the morning dose finished off the Buprenorphine that I was given for him. He was given the prescribed dose of 0.04 ml. on his gums every time and none had spilled. I called the emergency clinic Friday morning around 9:30 to let them know that I was 5 doses short of the medicine that I had paid $16.00 for. I spoke to [redacted] and she stated that someone would have to call me back. At 2:02 p.m., a woman called back and spoke with my daughter since I was at work. She stated that they could refill the medicine but they would have to charge for it. She also said that sometimes medicine is lost when drawing it out because of how the vial is sealed at the top. My daughter told her that she would have to consult with me. I went there after work and I spoke to [redacted] at the front desk. She said that we had gotten an adequate amount of the medicine and once it leaves their clinic, they have no control over it, implying we were spilling the medicine. She stated we would have to pay to get the medicine refilled. I paid a total of $259, with $16 for that medication on my initial visit there. I don't feel I should have to pay an additional fee if I wasn't given the right amount of medicine. We were not spilling it and we gave him the correct dose each time.Desired Settlement: I feel that if a pet is sick and the owner runs out of medication before the end of the prescribed period, then they should refill it for free. Also, since I paid $16 for what was supposed to be 14 doses of medication, that averages out to about $1.14 per dose. Since I was short 5 doses, I feel it is fair if I get a refund of $5.70 for the doses I am unable to give [redacted] now.

Business

Response:

Thank you for bringing attention to your dissatisfaction with our clinic and its practices and policies. We pride ourselves on the care and customer service we provide to the public and their pets. We apologize for the misunderstanding; therefore we are happy to enclose a check to reimburse you for the full prescription amount, not just for the doses that you had to repurchase. Please accept our apologies for the situation.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.