1/5 Ana F. 6 months ago on Google • 2 reviews
In
the
absence
of
any
response
from
the
Hospia
Administration
to
the
complaint
I
made
about
3
weeks
ago
due
to
the
mediocre
care
my
dog
was
subjected
to,
I
come
to
alert
you
to
what
happened,
making
the
situation
known:
On
June
28th,
I
went
to
the
emergency
room
at
that
hospital
because
my
dog
was
breathing
heavily
and
dropping
drops
of
blood
from
the
left
corner
of
her
mouth.
What
she
had
that
day
was
an
abscess
in
her
mouth
that
had
burst.
I
was
seen
by
Dr.
CARLA
Monteiro
and,
not
yet
knowing
what
those
symptoms
were
about,
I
told
her
that,
a
month
before,
the
dog
had
been
seen
by
her
usual
veterinarian
because
she
had
pain
on
the
left
side
of
her
mouth.
I
sent
Dr.
Carla
M.
the
veterinary
report
of
this
incident
(which
attested
to
the
pain
on
the
left
side
of
the
mouth)
as
well
as
the
tests
that
had
been
carried
out
at
my
request,
given
the
dog's
age.
I
immediately
asked
for
an
examination
of
the
dog's
mouth,
given
the
focus
of
the
symptoms
was
there,
but
MV
understood
that
it
was
"indispensable"
to
carry
out
a
thyroid
examination
and
the
examination
was
carried
out
there.
Then
he
saw
the
blood
and
urine
tests
that
he
had
done
1
month
before
and
noticed
that
the
blood
count
was
missing...
and
the
blood
count
was
done.
At
that
moment
I
realized
the
inexperience
of
the
veterinarian,
who
insisted
on
carrying
out
more
tests.
Then
he
thought
it
was
necessary
to
have
a
thoracic
and
cervical
x-ray
given
the
dog's
wheezing
and
also
a
laryngoscopy...!
With
the
dog
sedated
for
the
x-rays,
an
observation
of
the
mouth
was
carried
out
-
which
I
had
requested
from
the
first
minute
-,
an
examination
which,
despite
having
been
paid
for,
was
not
given
to
me
with
any
image,
nor
was
any
scraping
or
sampling
done.
of
material
that
would
make
it
possible
to
attest
or
demonstrate
the
diagnosis
given
by
MV
of
"interoral
neoformation".
In
fact,
it
was
an
abscess
that
had
burst
and
the
labored
breathing
was
nothing
more
than
pain.
MV's
inexperience
was
notable...she
still
insisted
that
I
leave
the
dog
hospitalized
for
observation
and
scheduled
a
CT
scan
for
10
days
later,
prescribing
antibiotics
and
anti-inflammatory
drugs
for
that
period.
I
believe
that
the
veterinary
doctor,
instead
of
focusing
on
the
mouth
(even
more
so
when
she
had
a
recent
report
in
her
hands
that
reported
pain
in
the
mouth),
carried
out
unnecessary
tests
that
had
no
connection
or
connection
with
what
the
dog
had
and,
in
the
end
,
with
the
diagnosis
he
gave.
The
same
MV
contacted
me
a
week
later
to
tell
me
the
results
of
the
thyroid
test
and
told
me
that
the
dog
had
a
problem
and
that
she
would
have
to
take
medication
for
the
rest
of
her
life.
However,
in
agreement
with
other
MVs
to
whom
I
showed
this
analysis,
the
result
is
very
close
to
normal
parameters,
so
the
most
likely
is
the
absence
of
thyroid
problems.
Furthermore,
a
thyroid
exam
is
never
carried
out
in
an
infectious
situation,
since
levels
change
when
the
animal
faces
an
infection.
Today's
veterinary
hospital
has
nothing
to
do
with
what
it
used
to
be,
but
it
is
still
responsible
for
ensuring
technical
quality.
It
is
regrettable
that
a
person
goes
to
the
veterinary
hospital
that
uses
the
name
of
the
college
in
the
expectation
of
quality
assurance
and
then
finds
themselves
in
a
situation
like
this,
as
if
this
were
synonymous
with
quality
assurance
(which
it
once
was,
without
a
doubt)
when
In
my
case,
the
technical
service
was,
in
my
opinion,
frankly
mediocre,
with
so
many
obsolete
and
unnecessary
tests
being
carried
out
for
the
dog's
problem,
which
was
a
simple
abscess
that
had
burst
that
day.
After
all
those
tests,
the
veterinarian
prescribed
antibiotics
and
anti-inflammatory
drugs
and
the
dog
recovered
100%,
which
also
confirms
the
pointlessness
of
the
tests
that
were
carried
out.
Imagine
if
you
went
back
and
did
the
CT
scan...
how
much
would
I
not
spend?
On
the
other
hand,
to
examine
a
dog's
mouth,
does
the
veterinary
hospital
not
have
less
expensive
means
of
diagnosis?
To
this
day,
I
am
still
waiting
for
an
explanation
as
to
how
the
tests
that
were
carried
out
are
justified,
taking
into
account
the
Veterinary
Doctor's
diagnosis.
4 people found this review helpful 👍
