Are there any rules regarding vet/client confidentiality or is it at the discretion of the vet?

A friend has re homed a young dog and her vet has forwarded vet records relating to the puppy to the new owners vet without asking. I thought it was wrong of the vet not to ask permission, which would have been given but I thought they were not allowed without it ?

yes there are rules but not sure about under those circumstances. im sure you will find it on the RCVS website.
was it because the puppy was poorly?

No, the record is to do with the animal, not the owner, and potentially means financial savings for the new owner (tests don't need to be repeated, etc) and can save precious time in an emergency. It's in the animal's best interest, which is what matters to vets.

No dog was not poorly, there was a question over behaviour which had been discussed with the vet
Surely the vet has a 'contract' with the owner as the owner pays for treatment?
I know with horses this is definately the case so don't see why things will be different with dogs?

Unless there are exceptional circumstances (debt collectors required to obtain payment, etc) there are no details about the owner transferred, only about the animal.

When we changed vets last year we weren't even able to request all our records to be sent on to the new vet, ONLY the vet himself could contact the old vet to request this we were told.

So can the new vet request and be given information without the old owners permission?

Yes - information about the animal. We always tell the new client that we'd like to contact the previous vet for the animal's history - if they refuse then we know there's something suspicious and are on our guard.

Wow. An equine vet would be hung, drawn and quartered for giving out information with no permission!

Why? What has the horse got to hide?

I would expect records to be forwarded to new vets.. especially if there is an existing condition ..

If there is an objection by the original owner, I would be questioning why.. perhaps a condition that previous owner has not admitted to,

some rescues that have come to me, have had records transferred to my vet, and then forwarded on to new owners..

I suppose because a previous medical condition can massively affect a horses' value and they are bought and sold more frequently than dogs 

Insurance companies can also require the animal's history in case of a claim, regardless of the owner's wishes.

An unknown previous medical condition can also massively affect the horse's very existence. It'd be a callous and foolish owner who withheld such information.

Presumably the owner gave information that enabled the new owner to locate the original vet.  Was there information on file with the vet that the previous owner did not disclose regarding the dog?

I can't see any other reason why passing this information on would cause problems.  It's in the animals best interest after all and if I were the new owner I'd want as much history as I could get.

We took on a dog from a rescue home and it's amazing how often that early vet history would have been useful.  Not least in determining his age!

The vet has to provide all relevant medical information to any vet who is now treating the animal relating  ... this is from RVCS code of practice

1F. Your responsibilities to your professional colleagues
(Overtly poor relationships between veterinary surgeons undermine public confidence in the whole profession.)

1.  Veterinary surgeons must:

a. always liaise with colleagues where more than one veterinary surgeon is involved in or has responsibility for the care of a group of animals

b. provide all relevant clinical information promptly to colleagues taking over responsibility for a case[url=][/url]
c. provide proper documentation for all referral or re-directed cases

d. refer cases responsibly (see Annex 3P, 'Referrals')

e. if advertising, do so in a professional manner and only in accordance with the relevant legislation.

2.  Veterinary surgeons must not:

a. speak or write disparagingly about another veterinary surgeon

b. obstruct a client from changing to another veterinary practice

c. discourage a client from seeking a second opinion

K

> If there is an objection by the original owner, I would be questioning why.. perhaps a condition that previous owner has not admitted to,
>
>

For there to be an objection, the previous owner would need to be asked........

>For there to be an objection, the previous owner would need to be asked........

Yes; when registering a new client with existing animals, we ask for details of the previous vet so that we can get the animal's history - just as when you move house your new doctor will get your medical notes transferred over. If the client is cagey about the previous vet, we know that they're hiding something ...

Read klb's quote from the RCVS website - it applies to all vets, including equine vets.

> It'd be a callous and foolish owner who withheld such information.

Yes I agree but unfortunately people routinely put the money (value of re-sale) before the animal.

>unfortunately people routinely put the money (value of re-sale) before the animal.

That's nothing to do with correct veterinary practice though.

i really cant see what the problem is. we have laws to protect us for data protection so information does not get into peoples hands of which we would not want.
Dogs care not who see's their medical record, they dont care who see's if they have had worms, spotty bum or dodgy ticker it cannot be used against them. so surely the quick transference of medical records for pets can only help unless as already suggested there is something to hide.

thats what im thinking too !

From RCVS

Client Confidentiality

1.  The veterinary surgeon/client relationship is founded on trust, and in normal circumstances a veterinary surgeon must not disclose to any third party any information about a client or their animal either given by the client, or revealed by clinical examination or by post-mortem examination. This duty also extends to associated support staff.

2.  In circumstances where the client has not given permission for disclosure and when the veterinary surgeon believes that animal welfare or public interest are compromised the RCVS may be consulted before any information is divulged.

3.  Permission to pass on confidential information may be express or implied. Express permission may be either verbal or in writing, usually in response to a request. Permission may also be implied from circumstances, for example in the making of a claim under a pet insurance policy, when the insurance company becomes entitled to receive all information relevant to the claim and to seek clarification if required.

4.  Registration of a dog with the Kennel Club permits a veterinary surgeon who carries out surgery to alter the natural conformation of a dog, to report this to the Kennel Club.

I don't think they legally can share this information outwith their own practice. I wonder if the other posting about passing information to "colleagues" means within the practice?

That said, I consider it good practice to share information in the interests of animal welfare so I would have no objections about information on my pets being shared.

If the information is on a computer it is also covered by the Data Protection Act 2000 I would think

The problem in this case is that the dog came from a breeder who, in hindsight, had some shortcomings regarding the rearing of the puppy which was discussed with the vet in relation to his behavioral issues. The new owner now has a print out of the vet records which repeat some of what was said and has spoken to the breeder who hasn't taken it too well and has come back in a very nasty fashion to my friend.

I was under the impression that vet consultations are confidential which looking at the above they should be.

Thanks everyone for taking the time to reply

I wanted to know why a dog that I bred died to check that it was nothing that may be hereditary as the owners couldn't really tell me.  Even though I'd got permission off the owners to ask for details the vet wouldn't even speak to me let alone discuss the matter which I think is really off.

Mum had to do a Freedom of Information Request to get our dogs' vet records - and that was our own dogs from our own vets!  I think it depends on the vet really.

>that was our own dogs from our own vets!

If the owner is on the record as being 'Mr Jones', then only Mr Jones can give permission for procedures, etc; at the vet's discretion 'Mrs Jones' can, especially if Mr & Mrs Jones have both been in the consulting room with the animal when treatment has been discussed - but Mr Jones' unmarried partner would not be able to have access without Mr Jones' express permission (which would be put on the notes). My son wouldn't be entitled to our dogs' histories because he's not registered as the owner on our system.

Even the police have to complete a FoI request to gain access to an animal's history; but another vet who is treating the animal would be entitled to access to the history for the animal's benefit.

The dogs were registered under my mum's name at the practice but they still refused to let her have a copy of their records - FoI was the only way of ensuring they gave them to her.

That's very peculiar, and I can't begin to think of a reason why they might take that stance!

Hehe, yes that's what we thought when we asked to see exactly what they had been doing to our dogs and they refused  

> The new owner now has a print out of the vet records which repeat some of what was said

Right - so in this case the vet records are a combination of medical history (drugs, dates, weights etc) AND a record of anecdotal evidence given at the time of consultation.

Breeder sells dog to owner 1 who in turn sells dog to owner 2.

Owner 2 has now contacted the breeder direct and shared some of this information with them.  Presumably the breeder is annoyed with owner 1 for something that was allegedly said during the consultation?

Mmmm, you could argue that the record should be confined to fact not opinion but it seems that much of the issue has arisen due to lack of communication between all parties.  Owner 1 would ideally have made the breeder aware of any medical or behaviour problems at an earlier date (they would also usually get first refusal if the dog is to be rehomed).  Owner 1 would also have discussed with owner 2 the full history of the dog.  If all that had been done then these issues would be a surprise to no one and caused no difficulty or offense.

A cautionary tail for any casual reader in a similar position though isn't it?

Yes although the breeder was given the option to have the dog back but declined.

Owner 2 decided to confront breeder about poor breeding practice having caused problems to the dog, (alleged by owner 1 to vet)

Breeder goes back to owner 1 in a 'what have you been saying about me' fashion.

Owner 1 assumed that what is said in private to a vet about an unpleasant individual (breeder) will remain confidential

A cautionary tale perhaps?

I'm confused! So the records were sent from one vet to another. Why did the new owner end up with a copy of it?

Because the vet of new owner gave her a print out!

I can't see why they would need to do that though, very unusual.

> Because the vet of new owner gave her a print out!

in which case the old vet is not at fault the new vet is.

One dog I rehomed came complete with papers and veterinary record card for vaccination, the dog had real issues with my vet and the previous vet was quite happy to discuss this for possible cause.