Fido, a 10-year-old male desexed Blue Heeler, was presented to a veterinary practice by Ms Y with diarrhoea and reduced appetite.

Dr A examined Fido. Fido was depressed, had tachycardia and a tense abdomen. Haemorrhagic diarrhoea was detected on rectal examination.

Fido was admitted to the practice for blood tests, analgesia and intravenous fluids.

Blood tests revealed marked haemoconcentration, and a presumptive diagnosis of haemorrhagic gastroenteritis was made.

Fido appeared stable throughout the afternoon and was kept at the practice overnight to continue receiving intravenous fluids.

When staff arrived at the hospital the next morning, they found Fido had died overnight.

Ms Y was notified of Fido’s death over the phone. During the call, she became aware that Fido had not been monitored overnight. She elected to take Fido home for burial. A necropsy was not discussed.

Ms Y submitted a complaint to the Vet Board several months later. The complainant alleged inadequate care in that Dr A had failed to inform Ms Y that Fido would be unsupervised overnight. Ms Y believed that, if Fido had been monitored, he would have been able to receive further treatment and would not have died.

The Board delegated the complaint for preliminary investigation by a Preliminary Investigation Panel.

After preliminary investigation, the Panel recommended to the Board that an informal hearing take place into the professional conduct of Dr A, and the Board subsequently resolved to hold an informal hearing.

The allegations considered at the informal hearing were that Dr A had engaged in unprofessional conduct in that:

• Dr A failed to inform Ms Y that Fido would be unsupervised overnight and failed to offer referral
• Dr A failed to offer a necropsy.

Board Guideline 16.6 states, ‘Where an animal requires continuing care or hospitalisation outside normal business hours, a veterinary practitioner provides the owner with information on:

• the nature and level of supervision of the animal provided outside normal business hours, and
• the potential impact of restricted attendance on the animal’s expected course of recovery.’

Board Guideline 18.5 states, ‘In the event of an unexpected death of an animal under their care, a veterinary practitioner provides an owner with information on arranging a necropsy, including any anticipated limitations to necropsy results.’

Further, Board Guideline 18.6 states, ‘A veterinary practitioner refers an owner to another veterinary practitioner to carry out a necropsy, unless it is not possible or practical to do so and the owner provides informed consent.’

The informal hearing panel findings were that Dr A had engaged in unprofessional conduct, not of a serious nature, and that Dr A be counselled.

Counselling is one of the determinations that may be made following a finding of unprofessional conduct. It is a formal process during which the veterinary practitioner is informed of how their conduct failed to meet the minimum required standard and how that standard might be met in future.

A Panel may counsel in any way it sees fit. The counselling may be oral, written, given immediately or within 28 days of the determination. The determination is recorded on the veterinary practitioner’s file and may be referred to in any future hearing or action taken by the Board.

Spot, a 9-year-old female speyed Cavoodle, was presented to a veterinary practice with distress and breathing difficulties. Spot was panting but did not have laboured breathing. She was admitted to the practice for blood tests and investigation of a painful lump on her left hind leg.

Blood tests were unremarkable. Spot ate well during her hospitalisation. Pain relief was given and the panting subsequently improved. A biopsy of the leg mass was planned for the following day, as there was a concern that the mass was cancerous.

Spot was discharged that afternoon. Unfortunately, Spot’s condition rapidly deteriorated later that evening and she died while being transported to an emergency veterinary practice.

Several months later, Mr Z submitted a complaint about treating veterinary practitioner Dr B to the Board, alleging inadequate communication and that inadequate/negligent care of Spot resulted in Spot’s unanticipated death.

The Board delegated the complaint for preliminary investigation by a Preliminary Investigation Panel.

At the completion of the investigation, the Panel considered that:

• the causes of the panting, distress and pain could not be definitively identified despite diagnostic testing having been performed
• medical records detailing results of blood work, heart rate, mucous membrane colour, ability to walk, passage of faeces and voluntary consumption of food indicated that Spot was in a stable condition when discharged
• a necropsy was performed at another practice and found:
• small masses in the right lung lobes, the largest being 17 x 18 mm
• some haemorrhage of the pericardium
• the cause of the acute death was not grossly apparent
• tissues were submitted for histopathology to a local pathology provider
• the lung masses were found to be sarcomas, likely secondary tumours that had spread from a primary sarcoma that had been present on the leg (which records showed had been present for at least 8 months)
• there were signs of inflammation in the pericardium, damage to the kidneys and liver
• the pathologist suggested that the cause of the sudden death may have been disseminated intravascular coagulation.

After considering the information provided to it, the Preliminary Investigation Panel recommended to the Board that the matter should not proceed further.

The Panel found Dr B’s clinical management of Spot to have been reasonable and that there was no evidence of negligence or inadequate care. It also found that there was no evidence that the treatment provided to Spot contributed to her death, or that any treatment that could have prevented her death was withheld.

The panel noted that thoracic radiographs may have identified the tumours in the right lung and that this additional information would have been of benefit but would have provided a poor long-term prognosis for Spot. There was no way of predicting the development of the (suggested) terminal disseminated intravascular coagulation which occurred later that evening.

After considering the Panel’s recommendation, Board subsequently resolved that the matter should not proceed further.