13 May 2025
Image: BillionPhotos.com / Adobe Stock
Mollie is a 10-year-old cross-breed who required a gall stone operation in May 2024.
The veterinary practice removed Mollie’s bladder stones and used a double layer of sutures to repair the wound before checking her bladder for leaks. No leaks were evident, but the practice advised Mollie’s owner that should this occur, it would happen quite quickly as a result of wound breakdown – a known risk from this kind of surgery, which was referred to in the consent form signed by the client pre-surgery.
Unfortunately, wound breakdown did occur despite the double layer of sutures, so a second procedure was required to repair Mollie’s wound.
Mollie’s owner maintained that the practice did not let her know when the cost estimate rose significantly and, as a result of this, she is now in debt.
Because the gall stone operation was then followed by another procedure the same week, the owner felt it must have been due to an issue with the first procedure and, therefore, she should not pay for the second procedure.
Mollie’s owner also felt her dog was subjected to the risk of two general anaesthetics too close together, and all without her knowing the reason for the second procedure.
A resolution manager spoke to both Mollie’s owner and the veterinary practice to take an impartial look at what had happened, to establish what the issues were, and how the two parties could come to an agreement to move forward.
Firstly, the resolution manager explored what led the owner to feel the second procedure was the fault of the practice, and not simply a known risk of the surgery that she had consented to.
The client said she felt the practice’s communication with her over the second procedure had left her to interpret the reasons for it herself. It was, therefore, established that the owner sought to understand the need for the second procedure, but this had not been clearly communicated to her.
Despite the fact that the owner consented to the risk of surgery, the practice offered a goodwill gesture of 25 per cent off the bill and also offered a payment plan to the owner, who was a valued customer, and in acknowledgement of the communication issues surrounding the second procedure.
This was not the practice’s normal approach to bill management, but it was something they were prepared to consider within the mediation setting.
The practice maintains that no errors were made during the first surgery and that the known complication was successfully addressed. In addition to concessions with the bill and payment terms, the practice also offered to meet Mollie’s owner face to face, to help her understand the second procedure in more detail.
The pet owner was grateful for both the goodwill gesture and the clarification over the purpose of the second procedure, and both parties agreed the resolution of this complaint.
Establishing good lines of communication with pet owners is a key part of customer service: whether that is about the care or procedures that practices are recommending, or the cost of it.
When those lines of communications break down, it can be very stressful for clients to not understand what is happening to their pet or indeed how much it is going to cost, and complaints then become almost inevitable.
