The term “standard of care” (SOC) has been defined many times in case law. In Vaughn v Menlove,1 a case from 1837 and one of the oldest legal references to SOC, the court wrote that an individual under a duty of care must have “proceeded with such reasonable caution as a prudent man would have exercised under such circumstances.” Similarly, in veterinary tort law, the SOC has been defined as “the standard of care required of and practiced by the average reasonably prudent, competent veterinarian in the community,”2 with one court stressing “nor does
The Northeast Veterinary Liaison Committee was formed in 2003 to address issues relevant to the veterinary community and to improve relations between veterinarians in New England and the region's only veterinary school, the Cummings School of Veterinary
Medicine at Tufts University. The committee's membership consisted of a diverse group of individuals, including small and large animal veterinarians, general practitioners, board-certified specialists, academicians, and administrators, all of whom volunteered their time. Representatives from the 6 New England states were included on the committee.
One of the many undertakings of the committee was to develop a document that would describe the expectations
To evaluate the efficacy of IV administration of apomorphine for removal of gastric foreign bodies in dogs.
495 dogs with gastric foreign bodies.
Records of a veterinary hospital were searched to identify dogs that received an injectable formulation of apomorphine between January 1, 2010, and July 30, 2015. Dogs with a gastric foreign body that received an IV injection of apomorphine were included in the study. Information extracted from the record of each dog included signalment, type of foreign material ingested, duration between foreign material ingestion and emesis, dose and number of doses of apomorphine administered, and whether emesis occurred and did or did not result in successful removal of the foreign body. Descriptive data were compared between dogs with and without successful foreign body removal.
Emesis with successful foreign body removal was achieved in 363 and 11 dogs after administration of 1 and 2 doses of apomorphine, respectively. Successful removal was more likely for young dogs and dogs that had ingested fabric, leather, or bathroom waste. Successful removal was less likely as the duration between foreign body ingestion and emesis increased and for dogs that received opioids, sedatives, or antiemetics before apomorphine administration. Minor adverse effects were recorded for only 4 dogs.
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVLANCE
IV administration of apomorphine was a viable alternative for induction of emesis and removal of gastric foreign bodies in dogs. Dogs should be examined as soon as possible after foreign body ingestion and should not receive any medications that might affect apomorphine efficacy.
We would like to comment on the JAVMA News article in the November 15, 2021, issue “Taking the chronic out of enteropathies.”1 The article discusses the use of a panel of new serologic tests for inflammatory bowel disease, relying heavily on a research paper published in 2021 in the Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine (JVIM) by Estruch et al.2 However, the News article fails to mention that the results of this study have been questioned due to lack of reporting and analytical assay
Veterinary professionals work daily to prevent and relieve animal suffering and promote animal health and welfare. Accomplishing this means making safe, effective, and economic veterinary care available and accessible to as many animal owners as possible.
Cost is a barrier to access to care, and a pet owner's financial limitations may force decisions that are against the best interest of the pet's well-being. Between 1998 and 2011, a steady increase was observed in the proportion of owned pets in the United States that received no health care from a veterinary practice, from 32% to 45% for cats and 15% to