stormie

did I really just type all the above out for nothing? When you go to McDonalds, do you get an expiry date on your burger? No, even though there is an expiry date printed on bun, meat, cheese etc packaging. Probably because you're expected to eat the burger straight away, as thats what was intended. Anyone who kept a burger for 12months and then ate it, would only have themselves to blame. Same with medications. The vet knows the drugs are valid for 12+months when they are prescribed. If an owner self-medicates their pet 18months later with the same pills that are dated 18months prior, they have themselves to blame, for not following the initial course instructions the first time, and also for not seeking vet attention for the problem they are self medicating for.

I believe the answers are in my earlier posts. May I now ask a question of you, please? Can you explain why the Expiry Date and Batch Number information should not and need not be provided to the person who purchases the medicine to give to their dog, please? Thank you. I never said it should not, but more that I don't think its essential to be there. As I said earlier (and yes, this is in my earlier posts, but because you asked, I will take the time to explain it all in full again) all our medication is regularly checked on arrival from our supplier for their expiry dates. Also, when the medication is dispensed, it's also checked, particularly if it's not something that's ordered regularly. When a pet comes in to see the vet for a consult, its because the animal is unwell. The owner doesn't know why or what's wrong, because unlike people, pets can't explain!! Vet decides that the pet needs a course of antibiotics. Because the weights of pets vary so much, antibiotics and other medications often come in bulk packaging, to then be distributed by the vet. A cat may only need 3 antibiotic tablets to last a 6 days, where as a giant breed dog might need 18 tablets. Vet is not going to give the cat owner the full box of 24 tablets, as this would just be ridiculously expensive and wasteful. It would also be irresponsible of the vet to prescribe more medication than is required, as it may encourage the owner to self medicate. So in this case, there is no need for an expiry date as the vet knows the pills expire in 2 years, yet the course goes for 6 days. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that generally speaking, vets are not going to (or should not) dispense more medication than what is required by the pet at the time. If the pet doesn't get better from the medication, it should be seen again for further work up. In instances where medication is going to be ongoing, such as NSAIDS, then generally a full box/bottle is given, so the batch no. and exp. date will be printed on the box, but also, because the medication is continuing, it will still be used up by the time the medication expires. I really can't think of an instance where any of our vets would dispense any medication that an owner might keep for longer than 12months and then actually suddenly use it again without consulting a vet first. It's important owners seek vet attention first, hence why medication is only dispensed on an 'as needed' basis.

All our S8's (Controlled Drugs) need to be accounted for. Every amount taken from the bottle/box needs to be documented and signed off. Do No Harm - can you give me a serious reason why you feel the expiry date and batch number should be written on the label for the clients? In what circumstances do you feel the client needs this information? I'm genuinely asking...

Yep, things got worse for us a couple of weeks ago too. All the blossoms and flowers are starting to come out

I'm confused... Vets do have to sign for drugs they acquire etc and also have to account for their use???

Are the puppies related? I'd be getting it thoroughly investigated now. The sooner you start, the closer you will be to discovering the cause. Don't waste time changing things around without proper guidance from a vet knowledgeable in skin issues, or a dermatologist.

Or you could even study and become a vet yourself. Exactly. And yes, Do No Harm, I am telling you that our one of our vets did not know that the AVA was considering the changes to the protocol. She is not a member of the AVA, so does not get their updates. Nor is there much of an option for her to attend the WSA conferences because a) its difficult to get the time off work and b)she couldn't afford it. One of our vets knew changes were in the air, because he attended the Jean Dodds talk with me. But as for changes within the AVA policies, no, because again, he is not a member of the AVA at present. If vets aren't supplied with the information, how are they meant to know? We get all the journals etc and they attend all the talks, but nothing on changes to the protocol until now. My vet who came to the Jean Dodds talk with me has been following it as best he can along with me. But as he so rightly said, he's not going to implement the change unless he has a reliable source there to back him up, should anything go wrong. He wanted the support of the AVA before he considered off-label doses of vaccines. My vets were practicing in the days before we had vaccines. They've seen how awful things used to be, so naturally, they want to be sure it is 100% safe to start vaccinating triennially, and also be sure they have sufficient information to present to clients to ensure what is now happening is safe for their pets. The majority of our clients aren't like DOLERS. I can guarantee you that most of them are going to be more unsure about vaccinating less and are going to want to know that this is the safest thing. Now we have the appropriate documents from the AVA and the Uni, we can show them this, but up till now, we've had nothing official to support us. Perhaps you should be lobbying to the appropriate organisations to ensure they pass on their information to vets. But to answer your questions, yes, I knew things were changing and were different in other countries, because I come home from work and sit on DOL, which is the only place I have accessed information. But my vets are still busy at work to sit on the internet and get information from forums...

Stormie, you should not be offended even if you are a vet and I'm sorry if you feel that you are being attacked. I am not, in fact, attacking anyone! It is not about 'attacking' and 'defending' and it is certainly not personal. It is intended as and should surely simply be about sharing relevant information with others which they might otherwise not be aware of. That's all! No offence is ever intended. (I'd throw a friendly 'smilie' in here if I knew how to, LOL) That quote of yours, in particular the bolded bit, is what I found most offensive and certainly seems to be making accusations, implying that vets withhold information from clients. The first our clinic has heard about the changing vaccination protocols has been what everyone else has heard from the media lately, and the recent email from the AVA saying they are looking into it. We have not received any evidence of studies, nor have any of the specialist centres held any talks about the issue. Up until now, we have been following a standard protocol, that is, following the dosage instructions on the vaccine labels as supplied by the manufacturing company. Now that we have support from the AVA supplying us with back-up information, we will now do the off-label dose. Like I said before, its just seems a little contradictory - you are saying you want all vets to follow protocols, yet you blamed your vet for the health of your dog because he/she vaccinated according to the dosage guide of the vaccine, and thus following protocols. What if your vet ignored the dosage guide of the vaccine and didn't give the booster, and your dog got parvo? I'm sure you'd be blaming the vet for this too. Sometimes it seems like people expect their vets to be superheroes.

It appears you may be personally offended by what I have posted and if so that is a pity because I merely raise issues and aspects that others do need to be aware of and in all probablity have overlooked - or been conditioned to not question. So, please don't target the messenger. If the message is not relevant (to you) then why repsond at all? Of course I'm offended. You are attacking the vet industry so therefore attacking me. And the message is very relevant to me because it's my job. You, the messenger, have made comments about what goes on in my industry and made a huge generalisation based on one bad vet.

The AVA is decades behind the recomendations of veterinary researchers. I have never encountered a dog which was such a slow learner! The reality is that veterinary research is not reported in the mainstream media. It is shared 'in house' among veterinarians - and all veterinarians know that owners (their clients) rely on them for 'expert' advice, opinion and information! Vets are not "damned if they do and damned if they don't". They'd be spared all 'damning' if they shared with their clients such relevant information as is needed for them to make their own Informed Decision about the preventative health care of their animal. And you're apart of this industry are you? You know this first hand?

Fair observation. Members of Forums don't necessarily know why someone is coming from the perspective they obviously are, and typed words are not accompanied by visible gestures. For the record, my perspective is not vindictive. I only encourage others to be aware of risks vs benefits and not assume their vet is the ultimate authority on what is best for their dog. For the record, too, my own dog (an Assistance Dog) almost died and so did I only because I had believed and trusted our vet who had misrepresented the necessity of a booster vaccination and insisted it was not only "essential" but "perfectly safe". That was one vet, but then all the others rallied in support of that vet. Subsequently hearing that similar instances have happened to others - and not infrequently, has an affect. It's only in the last couple of weeks that the AVA has started to acknowledge that vaccines last longer than 12months. As has been said, vets are damned if they do and damned if they don't. You want regulations to be enforced, but you have just blamed your vet for what happened to your own dog, when the vet was merely following the guidelines of the vaccination - created by the manufacturer of the vaccine. How is a vet supposed to win? You want vets to promote off label use of vaccines (which I'm all for now that's its been formerly accepted) but expect them to follow strict guidelines elsewhere?

I still don't quite understand what your issue is. Is it purely because there are no laws stating there needs to be an expiry date? Or is it because your vet removed pills from a foil packaging? I just had a quick look at our drugs on the shelf that get prescribed during a consult (NSAIDS, Antibiotics etc) and all of them have expiry dates starting from atleast 09/11. About 2/3 of them are dated until 2011. The manner in which these things SHOULD be prescribed, as a course, would mean that nothing we would prescribe would be used beyond it's use-by date, unless of course an owner didn't finish the described course and used the tablets themselves 12months later. But our labels are all dated, so one wouldn't expect a normal person to use tablets that were dated from 12months ago. It is NOT common practice to remove tablets from their foil sheets to dispense them and I'd be VERY worried about a vet who is doing this. From my experience, the tablets do not maintain their proper form and tend to break down into powder when they have been removed from their foil and left for a period of time. If a customer is given out of date medication, or medication dispensed inappropriately (such as removing it from foil), then I'm sure the Vet Surgeons Board would be more than willing to investigate the said vet. I've never really seen a direct need for clients to have an expiry date on their dispensed tablets. It's the responsibility of the staff to ensure all medication has an adequate used by date when they take the pills from the bottle. Most of the medications that are put into dispensing bags/containers are done so because obviously only a small proportion of the full bottle of pills is being used, and so the course of those medications is likely to only be days to weeks. Those clients who's pets are on long term medications like Metacam and Rimadyl buy a full unopened bottle, which has the expiry date printed clearly.

I get what you are saying, but you are generalising all vets here because of something one vet did! The whole thing sounds weird to me - the fact that the vet supplied you with enough of the drug to last you months, yet also broke up a sheet of pills by taking them out of the foil. Doesn't make sense to me. Most vets, well I know we do, just cut up the foil sheets should we not want to dispense a whole sheet. I have never heard of a vet removing the tablets from their foil sheets and then placing them into a dispensing bag/container. It simply doesn't make sense. And depending on the situation, we also wouldn't supply that amount of drugs to be used 'as needed' over a period of months. Those who are on regular NSAIDS, perhaps, but again, these have a long shelf life at the time of dispensing and we also know that the course will run out well before they expire.

We're guessing Previcox?

DNH, a lot of your posts lately seem to be quite negative towards the veterinary profession. I appreciate you may have had a negative experience, but your opening line questioning vets in general about their dispensing methods, I find a little offensive. I'm not sure why your vet in particular dispensed the particular tablets you received in that manner, but I can assure you it is not common practice to remove tablets from their foil casings to dispense them. All our drugs are routinely checked for expiry dates - and this would be the case in most clinics. Most of our commonly dispensed drugs also have a relatively high turnover rate too, meaning they only sit on the shelf for a couple of weeks at the most, and most of these have atleast a 2 year expiry from when they come in from our supplier. So whilst I appreciate that you may have had a negative experience with your vet, it doesn't mean that all vets in general are dodgy in their dispensing techniques.

Whats the difference between the guidelines you have. DNH, and the link to the PDF Guidelines in the letter from the AVA just posted?

The current protocol for adults with an unknown history is that they just need one dose of a DHP, so I would guess this would still be the same. This is fantastic, and just what we needed to support us in our soon to be decision to follow a 3yr protocol with the current annual vaccines, in our new clinic. YAY!! eta: the date was very interested. My boss only received an email from them after that article in the Herald, so was just last week. And he said the one he read said that they were still making up their minds... but he's getting old so maybe he misread it

This made me smile. And while in most situations like yours, pre bloods would have been more ideal, but just wanted to say I think your vet would really appreciate that. Sounds like you have a good relationship and I can only hope that most of our soon to be new clients will think of us the same ;)

Orbit probably goes about 3 times a day on average? But can vary between 2 and sometimes 4. He eats a completely raw diet - prey model.

Porpee and me while taking pics for our work website... can you tell I love him?

Agree! We quite often do surgeries on older animals - its the older ones who commonly need dentals for foul teeth, or the little warts that can pop up all over the place. I monitor pretty much every anaesthetic we do and I've never seen anything die under GA. We do pre-anaesthetic bloods on the older ones, and whilst they are all fine, we go ahead. I operated on our golden retriever when she was about 13, to have a lipoma taken off. All very straight forward. I don't think its right for people to judge others on what procedures that are having done. I totally understand removing lumps etc that are unsightly, even if they are completely benign.

Found THIS hopefully the link works..

You'd think so wouldn't you. I can't understand if the research has been done, why companies are still bringing out annual vaccines. It wasn't that long ago (6months maybe?) that we had a rep come by trying to push their new particular vaccine, which was still an annual, and their selling point was how it had a stronger hit on the immune system and so was more reliable, or something ridiculous. I think annual check-ups are still really important, though, and people shouldn't stop going in for check-ups simply because they're not getting vaccines.

The AVA has just released their new vaccination guidelines - they've been in the works for quite some time. It recommends a 3 yearly protocol for core vaccination (parvo, distemper, hepatitis) then annual vaccination for additional vaccinations if they are required (parainfluenza / bordatella / leptospirosis etc). It has prompted a review of our protocols even though we are already on a 3 year protocol. Feline vaccination is a bit tricky - the recommendations are for a 3 year protocol but no one has tested a 3 year DOI. Do we (the profession) take the leap of faith, or reluctantly stick with the registered protocol, or go halfway and do 3 year with patients who are 'low risk'? I can confirm that this message has gone through - was down at my vets 2 days ago and was talking to the vet nurse about vaccinations - I have had my reminder notice come through but was reluctant to go down the yearly routine and wanted to sound them out on 3 yearly - the nurse said 'Oh yeah, we got something on that today from the Vet Association, they recommend 3 yrs too." So there is hope out there..... (they still want me to come in for a yearly check up though....LOL) Excellent! This is what needs to happen. We haven't received anything yet but hopefully will shortly!

A lot of people say this, but say it in a negative way in that vets want annual vaccines because they're scared they won't make as much money if people don't come in as often. It might be the case for some, but I can honestly say the main concern from my boss is what if in 5years time parvo is around more and they are saying 'oops, we should have been doing annuals'. He'd hate to tell our clients that they didn't need annual vaccines, to have their dogs contract parvo a year later. It's unlikely, but until he's 100% sure its still effective, he won't be changing. Personally I think if vets have good trusting relationships with their clients, most will still return for annual check-ups anyway. Well, I'd hope people would...