Any veterinary clinic that ghost-writes, in whole or in part, a review of that very same clinic--
in which it, to wit,
(1) refers to the owner as "a supremely talented practitioner of veterinary medicine and of communicating with both humans and the patients"
(2) admonishes clients to have a list of requisite qualities in order to be have the privilege of entrusting the care of their pet to this clinic
deserves
several rounds of applause
for not only professional competence
but also exceptional modesty--and rectitude.
* "His modesty enables him to refer a client to an appropriate specialist when the presenting problem is outside his area of professional expertise."
See
http://www.yelp.com/us...
* * * * *
C'mon! That office visit (about $58), a 2-3 minute examination, is just the pretext ("come-on") for tacking on other fee-based "services" and a pitch for doing more tests, procedures, etc.
It is interesting how what is essentially "hustling"--notwithstanding the cloak of respectability--on the clinic's part, turns out to take up upwards of 50% of the allotted appointment.
Then the client is placed in a very awkward position: "It's up to you (but it's too bad if you can't or won't)."
This is why the vets here and elsewhere are so blase about what (little) they do during the so-called "office visit." It's really just the start of serious business.
Edit Remove
People thought this was:Useful (7)Funny (3)Cool (2)
2 Previous Reviews: Hide »
12/21/2008
Pet-owners need to be able to say, "Whoa!" or "No thank-you" or "I will have to think about it first" before they go in to see their vet! (This includes testing, injections, cleanings, surgeries, products).
* * * * *
Read on:
A cat owner now for about three years, I have already been to half a dozen vets in the area (so far). I'm still learning how to be a responsible pet owner while living within my means.
After reading reviews, comparing my experiences with others, I believe you can save yourself much grief, just by remembering this.
Within a 20- or 25-minute appointment, it is often extremely difficult to think clearly. After all, one's pet is sick and one is anxious and/or upset. And willing to do do whatever the vet tells you. Including writing a virtual blank check.
I so relieved that I did not let Dr. Spencer talk me into surgically removing a spot of dermatitis, which he diagnosed as a precancerous lesion, as well as doing dental work--not necessary--on my senior cat.
For a simple urine test here, one has make an appointment for an office visit, during which the vet (Dr. Westerdahl) spent about 2 minutes talking about the results.
I don't like twiddling my thumbs just to hear this. The rest of the appointment involved weighing my cat and taking his temperature.
And I have witnessed the receptionists telling clients that the vet could not refill prescriptions until the customer arranged for another office visit.
As if this Dr. Spencer would--really--do more than cast a supremely indifferent, perfunctory glance at your pet and then self-contentedly grin and give his consent.
(I bet many of those prescriptions are for pets with chronic conditions, i.e., they will be on those medications for life).
That he treated my cat as an inconvenient, inanimate object--well, I won't get into that here.
* * * * *
Overall evaluation: Under-performing, unnecessary, aggravating, and expensive.
Edit Remove
People thought this was:Useful (4)Funny (1)Cool (1)
1/12/2008
Isn't "the system" is supposed to weed out incompetence and poor performance?
Dr. Spencer, the new owner, refused to see my dying cat because I saw another vet. I consider this professional misconduct.
After the first office visit, I repeatedly and diplomatically asked to see another, ANY other veterinarian there.
It was the previous vet-owner, Dr. Stephen Jones, who built up the reputation of this clinic.
Spencer misdiagnosed speckling on my cat's nose as precancerous lesions based on a nonchalant two-second examination, handed us the estimate, and let us know he was ready to do surgery. I had the distinct impression that he pretends to know things he does not.
He generously told me that he could clean my cat's teeth and remove the lesion at the same time, provided that I submit the cat to an ultrasound cardiac screening ($500). He did not explain the risks involved in such surgery on a geriatric cat.
This initial office visit was, to put it mildly, inadequate.
Even the generally noncommittal cat's co-owner--on the faculty of the University of Washington--, turned to me and said, "He's [really] not very good, is he?"
He examined my for a total of two minutes and showed no genuine interest in my cat. His approach can be described as "shooting-from-the-h ip."
He summarized the first office visit by saying that my cat was in terrible shape. The next day, however, after he actually looked at the lab results, he reversed himself. Then he stated that I could stop--cold-turkey-- the sub-cutaneous injections. This is advice that I strongly believe, in retrospect, harmed my cat and led to his premature death.
His expertise on felines is frankly nil. Claiming that a cat with chronic renal failure, just based on numbers, is back in a "pre-crash" phase flew in the face of common sense--kidney function does not regenerate--and was misleading. And plain WRONG.
Later on he refused to write a refill--a common refrain heard at this clinic. He also stingily prescribed only three tablets of a safe appetite stimulant widely used for felines with kidney disease.
An illustration of his churlish telephone manners would one he left on my answering machine: "...and I'M TELLING YOU..."
I was not expecting such a strong whiff of Harry Hope and "The Iceman Cometh."
He also demanded--and later revealed, without my permission--sensitiv e personal information, which later he admitted, had not been actually necessary to have at all.
To that say the other vet, Dr. Westerdahl, is mediocre would be to give her undue praise, notwithstanding her credentials, which look good, unfortunately, only on paper. Her guarded demeanor--piscine stare-- did not make communication exactly easy.
She did the bare-bones minimum, evincing a grammatical infelicity but little interest, and then exited without even informing me that the office exam (all of 10 minutes) was over. When I informed an assistant that I had an unanswered question, Westerdahl returned, after having done the urinalysis, and spent another five minutes.
She had also had my cat's nails, trimmed, something I had not asked for. It did not, in any way, compensate for a sub-mediocre office visit.
I got the impression that they observe their clients with not entirely benign interest. Hence, the ambient distrust in the air--side-glances and whispers, not helped by the size of the reception area--about that of a large closet.
I should have known better when, before deciding whether to go here or not, I interviewed the vet tech. We were suddenly pulled out of the room by a staff person who gave me a dirty look and had me presented with a bill for $40 (no one had even seen my cat!).
They did not allow us to see our cat's blood being drawn, inventing a bit of nonsense for not doing so. (Who exactly is paying for this, by the way?).
The vet tech Kay was of unfailing good cheer and decency. I am grateful to this sterling individual. The other staff--several with their best cosmetic smiles intact 9-to-6 and occasional insolence--do their jobs.
One other positive note: they do write prescriptions so you don't have to feel ripped off buying medications from their limited dispensary (cf, Cat Clinic of Seattle).
New clients receive a pet manual; the web-site also is moderately informative.
Not a good place to bring a cat, in any case.
Note: Neither vet is a cat-owner, though the staff insists, a bit too strenuously, that they both "really like" cats.
Edit Remove
People thought this was:
No comments:
Post a Comment