Emergency clinicians need more information about offering spectrum of care and solutions for clients with financial limitations.

Abstract

Objective: Owner-reported financial limitations are common in emergency practice, but it is unclear what clinicians do when faced with clients who cannot afford the recommended treatment plan. The objective of this study was to survey emergency veterinarians and ask about what they would recommend when faced with common scenarios that are treatable but where financial limitations exist.

Methods: An anonymous, internet-based survey of small animal veterinarians at emergency hospitals who described treatment options for a series of case-based scenarios where owners had financial limitations.

Results: 168 emergency veterinarians responded to the scenario questions. Owner-reported financial limitations resulted in various recommendations, which sometimes varied by scenario, including return to a primary care veterinarian, referral to a shelter or high-quality, high-volume spay-neuter clinic, emergency clinician-performed procedures, surrender, and euthanasia.

Conclusions: Owner-reported financial limitations have a variety of possible solutions, not all of which were readily apparent to all emergency clinicians. High-quality, high-volume spay-neuter clinic referral was less commonly considered. Life-threatening conditions often resulted in recommendations for euthanasia or possible surrender, as well as return to a primary care veterinarian.

Clinical relevance: While there is a growing recognition of the need for a spectrum-of-care approach when presenting options to veterinary clients, options are often limited in emergency practice. Our results indicated that, while clinicians want to offer a variety of options, they may not be aware of all options. Maximizing partnerships between emergency hospitals and primary care veterinarians, shelters, and high-quality, high-volume clinics is a strategy that might help increase care options in a region.