Levels of care: charity versus private practice

Following on from the previous piece on gold-standard care, I wanted to focus on an issue that seems to exist, but isn’t often acknowledged or explained.

I think you all know I am a huge supporter of the vet care provided by charities; I’ve worked at RSPCA Harmsworth, Battersea and Mayhew, and I know the excellent care provided to clients and patients – from pigeons to snapping turtles and everything in-between.

However, in the talks around levels or standards of care, I’ve seen and heard people within the vet community suggesting a charity’s level of care is lower than that provided in a non-charity setting.

Unfair attitude

For me, this was really brought to the forefront of my mind when I saw a vet allege, on social media, that patients treated by a charity received a lower standard of care than owned or private vet practice patients…

Having worked in both, I can honestly say that this attitude is:

• very common
• completely untrue

The language seems to encourage this divide when people compare charity and private veterinary care.

There are always different treatment options that are of the same standard of care for the patient. Using your knowledge of the patient and the client to individually tailor the care you provide is the “best” they can receive – and everyone’s best is different.

Pelvic example

My main example is the care of cats with fractured pelvises… In a private clinic I worked in they plated every cat pelvis. As I have always worked in London, fractured pelvises are super common, so I’ve seen a lot.

There was never the option for cage rest; it was straight to surgery, and then the long physio and rehab after – a very intense journey for patients and staff alike.

In the charity world, however, I only found one case that needed plating. The fracture was unusually in the first third of the acetabulum, so plating was necessary. In all other cases, cage rest was the treatment. In my experience this was a far more comfortable patient journey and a less intense one for staff, too.

Which is worse?

The cases I saw walked better after six weeks than those that had had surgery, and they tolerated their care better, too. The cost was significantly lower and the outcome at least as good as surgery.

So what is the “lower” standard of care here? Is it based on the cost? The ease of the patient journey? Or the patient’s outcome?

In this example I would say the “lower” standard of care provided an excellent outcome, with less intervention, less risk for the patient and a reduced workload for staff. What’s not to love about that?

A different approach doesn’t mean a lower standard.

• For more on this and other topics, check #VetHum on Twitter and sign up to the mailing list.