Sorry it has taken me a while to post the next blog. Right after I posted the first, I was in the midst of a whirl wind pet sitting for a dear friend, speaking to a class of sophomore and junior high school students, speaking at Rau Animal Hospital's client education seminar and preparing to travel to Las Vegas to present at the Western States Veterinary Conference. The wind has settled and I have poured a cup of coffee to sit and catch up with you. Can I refill your cup before we chat?
I had the opportunity to speak to a large group of technicians while in Las Vegas about developing a thriving dentistry department. One of the discussions we had concerned dentistry admissions processes and consent forms. I shared that when I visit practices often I see that the consent form has three selections from which to sign off:
Some look like this:
If further problems are detected while my pet is under anesthesia (initial all that apply)
__________ Do whatever is needed to give my pet a healthy oral cavity, but not limited to tooth extractions.
__________ Do only what is authorized
__________ Please contact me before doing any additional procedures. if I can not be reached while my pet is under anesthesia then:
___________ Perform whatever procedures are needed
___________ Do only what I have authorized
I would like to challenge this form of consent. I understand that this is an attempt to handle problems that occur every day in practices across the country. Our patient is under anesthesia, the mouth is cleaned, charted and all X-rays have been taken. We now know that there is much more pathology than originally expected. A call is placed to the pet's guardian and they can not be reached. This leaves the veterinarian in a quandary and a state of frustration. Do we do whatever is needed or not? With this form of consent many feel they have "informed consent" to proceed with therapy and surgery or at least it gives them guidelines and client expectations under which to proceed.
I also know from having talked to many employing this type of consent, that clients are still disappointed with the bill. They feel they did not give consent to spend "that much money" and they are shocked at the number of teeth extracted. And, unfortunately, it is common practice for the receptionist to present the client with the total bill and it is often she/he that has to take the initial heat...in front of all of the other clients. So, in many cases, the person that has the least amount of dentistry training on staff, the person that was probably not involved at all, the person that has no power to amend the bill, often bears the brunt of the client's disappointment. And we wonder why practices find it hard to keep wonderful customer service representatives and why some our front line staff members can get surly with our clients!
So, my question is, if we asked these clients; did we meet your expectations, do you think they would say "YES!" Do you think they are going to be apt to provide the same services next year? Do you think these clients are going to recommend this experience?
Some look like this:
If further problems are detected while my pet is under anesthesia (initial all that apply)
__________ Do whatever is needed to give my pet a healthy oral cavity, but not limited to tooth extractions.
__________ Do only what is authorized
__________ Please contact me before doing any additional procedures. if I can not be reached while my pet is under anesthesia then:
___________ Perform whatever procedures are needed
___________ Do only what I have authorized
I would like to challenge this form of consent. I understand that this is an attempt to handle problems that occur every day in practices across the country. Our patient is under anesthesia, the mouth is cleaned, charted and all X-rays have been taken. We now know that there is much more pathology than originally expected. A call is placed to the pet's guardian and they can not be reached. This leaves the veterinarian in a quandary and a state of frustration. Do we do whatever is needed or not? With this form of consent many feel they have "informed consent" to proceed with therapy and surgery or at least it gives them guidelines and client expectations under which to proceed.
I also know from having talked to many employing this type of consent, that clients are still disappointed with the bill. They feel they did not give consent to spend "that much money" and they are shocked at the number of teeth extracted. And, unfortunately, it is common practice for the receptionist to present the client with the total bill and it is often she/he that has to take the initial heat...in front of all of the other clients. So, in many cases, the person that has the least amount of dentistry training on staff, the person that was probably not involved at all, the person that has no power to amend the bill, often bears the brunt of the client's disappointment. And we wonder why practices find it hard to keep wonderful customer service representatives and why some our front line staff members can get surly with our clients!
So, my question is, if we asked these clients; did we meet your expectations, do you think they would say "YES!" Do you think they are going to be apt to provide the same services next year? Do you think these clients are going to recommend this experience?