Connor Hibbert
We have had all three of our animals registered with this practice for a considerable period and, until recently, had not experienced any major concerns. In December, we brought our cat in after he developed a whistling sound from one nostril when breathing and was sneezing frequently. During the consultation, we clearly expressed our concern that there may be a foreign object lodged in his nostril. The vet advised that the symptoms were most likely allergy-related. While further investigations were mentioned as an option, the clinical advice and reassurance given led us to understand that these were not considered necessary at that stage. On the basis of that professional advice, we chose not to pursue additional diagnostics. Over the following weeks, his symptoms worsened and his eyes began watering. We returned to the practice and were seen by a different vet. On this occasion, we were informed that it appeared he had previously had a foreign body in his nose which had resulted in an infection. He was prescribed medication and pain relief. In our view, had the initial concern regarding a potential obstruction been more thoroughly explored at the first appointment, this may have been identified and treated sooner. We raised this through the formal complaints process but were advised that the practice did not believe any clinical error had occurred. We recognise that veterinary medicine involves professional judgement. However, as pet owners, we rely heavily on that judgement when making decisions about whether to proceed with investigations or treatment. The practice promotes itself as a caring, family-run business. While they may present this image, our experience suggests a focus on repeat visits and revenue rather than genuinely prioritising animal welfare. I share this experience so that other pet owners can make an informed decision, but my advice would be to avoid.
