I am posting this review exactly one year after my dog Bandit’s third visit to Vets for Pets Oadby. This is not an emotional or impulsive reaction. It is written after a year of reflection, specialist involvement, and careful review of the clinical records.
Bandit was initially assessed by the senior vet and, across three consultations, his symptoms were repeatedly attributed to dental disease. He was later diagnosed with oral malignant melanoma, by which point the disease had progressed beyond curative treatment. Bandit was ultimately put to sleep.
One issue that continues to trouble me is the dental treatment estimate issued on 2 January 2025, before any dental work took place. The document was written entirely in the past tense, describing Bandit as having already been admitted, anaesthetised, treated, and discharged, despite none of this having yet occurred. I raise this not as a clerical criticism, but because clinical documentation reflects clinical thinking. The language used conveys that the diagnosis of dental disease had already been reached and the treatment pathway fixed, rather than remaining provisional or subject to diagnostic uncertainty. Notably, the estimate made no reference to the visible oral lesion, the possibility of cancer, or the need for further investigation. In my view, this strongly suggests that alternative diagnoses, including melanoma, were no longer being actively considered at that stage.
From Bandit’s first presentation on 13 December, it was 63 days before radiotherapy finally began on 14 February. At the time, I described this as nearly 70 days. When this timeframe was mentioned to the oncology consultant, they initially thought I had said 17 days, not close to 70, which in itself underlined how long the delay actually was. Bandit survived only 67 days after treatment began. The delay to treatment was almost as long as the time he had left.
While individual staff were polite and professional, the early clinical judgement was deeply flawed. Following Bandit’s death, the franchise owner stood firmly by their staff. What was notably absent was any apology or acknowledgement that earlier decisions may have contributed to the outcome. The response felt defensive rather than reflective, as though recognising an error was seen as an admission of guilt rather than an opportunity to learn.
This review is not about money. It is about accountability and the consequences of delay in a time critical diagnosis. Bandit was my constant companion for over eleven years, and his loss has left a permanent void.
I hope this encourages prospective clients to ask questions and encourages the practice to reflect carefully on how early warning signs are handled. In cases like this, time matters.
