EXCLUSIVE The vet misdiagnosed my dog and made us spend £2,500 on pointless treatments before recommending he was put down - all he needed was rest

Daily Mail​

8 hours ago

A woman has told how a vet misdiagnosed her pet dog and made her shell out £2,500 in treatments that had no effect before suggesting he was put down - when all he needed was rest and medication.
Emma Edwards, 50, told MailOnline she faced 'utter contempt' when she tried to pursue a complaint against her vet practice after her beloved dog Coco was 'misdiagnosed' with pancreatitis - and almost put down.
The small business owner from Cwmbran said she and her husband were left fearing Coco was dying and spent £2,500 on pancreatitis treatments before vets finally admitted they had got it wrong.
She was then told Coco would need to be euthanised, or she would need to pay more than £6,000 for an operation to fix a back issue - before a specialist finally diagnosed the pooch with a slipped disc and prescribed cage rest.
Coco's case was dealt with by at least ten different vet staff during the three-month ordeal, his notes show. One even wrote she 'definitely' believed the dog had a spinal issue rather than pancreatitis, but refused to do X-rays to confirm it.
But when Mrs Edwards lodged a complaint, she says the practice fobbed her off with excuses that the practice was relying on locum vets at the time, and that a pancreatitis misdiagnosis was a common occurrence.
The practice manager even sent the couple a medicinal paper outlining how the condition can often be confused with spinal issues, while refusing to repay any of the wasted £2,500.
To add insult to injury, the practice - a WellPets branch in Cwmbran - even got Coco's gender wrong in their correspondence with his owners.
Mrs Edwards, who has owned dogs for 20 years, first noticed something was wrong with Coco when he began shaking and would yelp if touched on his back, and also had a hard stomach.
Taking him to the vets, she was told Coco could have a spinal or gastrointestinal issue. Despite her concern that Coco was displaying no clinical signs of pancreatitis, Mrs Edwards said the vet conducted a test for the condition without making any investigations into the possibility of a spinal issue.
The test for pancreatitis in dogs is known to sometimes throw up false positives, which is what happened in Coco's case. He was given fluids and pain medication and, for a few days, appeared to be slightly better.
But as the pain medication wore off, Mrs Edwards' dog stopped eating and it became increasingly clear he was in severe pain.
The couple took Coco back to the vet to request a spinal x-ray - but the vet, who was new to the case, refused to give him one.
She even wrote in Coco's notes that, if it wasn't for the blood test - which is believed to have been a false positive - she would 'definitely' diagnose a spinal issue, but that she didn't want to put him through 'unnecessary X-rays.'
Then, disaster struck after he woke up one morning and was unable to walk or control his bladder.
'He deteriorated rapidly until he could barely stand,' Mrs Edwards told MailOnline. 'We rushed him to the vets as an emergency.
'It was only then staff admitted it was a spinal problem. We were told, to our faces, that we had to immediately decide whether to euthanise Coco or pay more than £6,000 for an MRI and surgery.
'He deteriorated so quickly we were in panic mode. We thought he was dying.'
Fortunately, Mr and Mrs Edwards managed to work out a way to afford the surgery so didn't have Coco put to sleep. They were instead referred to a specialist clinic, owned by the same company as their vet's practice more than an hour away in Gloucester.
Far from recommending euthanasia, the specialist 'instantly' told Mrs Edwards that Coco did not need surgery, and should recover fully with pain medication and plenty of crate rest.
The total vet bill for the specialist came to £3,300, around half of what the couple had been quoted for the operation.
Six weeks later, Mrs Edwards said Coco, who was diagnosed with IVDD, a degenerative disc disease, had 'fully recovered'. He will continue to have occasional flare-ups of the issue, which will be treated with rest and pain relief.
'He's happy and healthy, we just have to monitor him,' Mrs Edwards told MailOnline.
'It's crazy to think that if it wasn't for money he would be dead.
'All he needed from the start was a bottle of anti-inflammatories and cage rest and we paid £6000 on something we needed to spend £30 on.'
Video footage shared with MailOnline shows how Coco's ability to walk declined over several weeks in February last year, before he appeared fully recovered by the end of March after six weeks of rest.
After Coco's ordeal was over, Mr and Mrs Edwards launched a complaint against their vet over - amongst other issues - the misdiagnosis, wrong treatment and advice they received to consider putting Coco down.
'The practice manager told me that they were relying on locum vets at the time,' Mrs Edwards said.
'Coco saw so many different vets, there were no consistent notes, his medical record was a complete mess.
'The manager even still tried to claim that Coco had pancreatitis even after the diagnosis. We had been with this vet practice for 20 years. It was like she didn't care.'
In an apparent attempt to defend the vet's initial diagnosis, the manager even sent Mrs Edwards a medical paper detailing the difficulties of differentiating pancreatitis from spinal issues - but the dog owner believes this only proves the vets should have done more tests in the first place.
They told her: 'The vets involved used a rational approach to Coco's case at the time, offered other diagnostic modalities as well as seeking a second opinion when response was limited and referral when Coco deteriorated.
'The vets treating Coco at the time did not have the benefit of hindsight and I am sure they felt they were providing appropriate care given the clinical picture in the moment.'
To add insult to injury, the practice - a WellPets branch in Cwmbran (pictured) - even got Coco's gender wrong in their correspondence with his owners
Her complaint was then handed to the Veterinary Defence Society, or VDS, which insures vets from negligence claims and investigates complaints on behalf of their clients - the vets themselves.
The VDS has faced criticism over how vets are left to investigate other vets' actions, as part of an organisation specifically designed to protect them and defend their reputations.
The VDS told Mrs Edwards that there was no case to answer.
The family has never received any compensation for the £2,500 of wasted money on pancreatitis treatment.
It comes after campaigners warned the veterinary complaints system leaves pet owners feeling dismissed, with consumer body Which? warning urgent reform is needed.
The VDS lists its goals online, and says: 'We defend reputations against claims and offer compensation when appropriate. We protect you against claims of veterinary negligence, with human injury cover included.
'We provide legal representation at criminal and disciplinary hearings.'
In response, Mrs Edwards has set up a petition calling for reform to the vet complaints system.
A spokesperson for WellPet Vets told MailOnline: 'Our sincere sympathies remain with Coco's family and appreciate the worry of nursing a much-loved pet through a period of ill health. We recognise how upsetting this experience has been but are glad to hear Coco has recovered well.
'While we cannot comment on individual cases due to our duty of client confidentiality, we can confirm that our client care team has been in ongoing contact with Coco's family in an effort to address their concerns. We are sorry to hear that they feel their complaint remains unresolved.
'The most important thing to us is the welfare of the pets under our care. Our dedicated team at Wellpet Vets aims to provide a professional and compassionate service at all times, and we believe we have done in this case.
'We take any suggestion of substandard delivery of care to animals or their owners extremely seriously. All incidents are investigated thoroughly and any appropriate action necessary is taken.
'We should also clarify that our practice carries professional indemnity insurance provided by the Veterinary Defence Society (VDS) and when we receive a claim from a client seeking financial compensation, we are obliged under the terms of our policy to refer unresolved complaints to the VDS.
'We strongly encourage all pet owners to raise concerns with us directly, so we can continue to review and respond to them appropriately and fairly and allow the due resolution process to take place.'