I read an article in the most recent issue of JAVMA concerning client communications. It was very useful and outlined some of the main things that clients expect out of their vet visit. It’s vital that we meet the client’s expectations so that they will return to us. However, the one client expectation that struck me was that clients expect to be given options. In general, I have always felt that my job as a veterinarian is to “offer what’s best for the Pet,” and then (only if the client declines my recommendation) should I, “offer what’s best for the Pet within the financial guidelines they give me.”
How many options should we offer our clients? Should we offer them a good, better and best series of treatment plans? In my view, we should offer what’s best— that may include options for referral, surgeries, medical therapy, etc. If the client says, “Great, I’m going to the referral for a cat scan,” then I don’t think that we need to offer anything else. If we offer bloodwork and rads and the client says, “I can’t afford all of that,” should we offer empirical therapy? You are better off if you can establish your clients’ needs and situation and then present them with a small number of choices based on what you have found out.
But, if we document our original recommendation (the best plan) and that the client declined this recommendation, then under most circumstances we would be okay to present a modified approach. In the end, I think that the vast majority of Pet parents bring their Pets to us because they recognize us as the animal experts. They want us to fix their Pet. They expect us to do what’s right. Taking away all financial restrictions, most people would do whatever we think is necessary to fix their Pet. But, we do live in a world with financial restrictions.
Sometimes, the best care within those guidelines, however, is to inform the owner that empirical or palliative therapy is not possible or appropriate for the given condition without first performing diagnostics.