Figure 1.

The opinion of proper vaccine protocol depends on who is being asked. Drug companies, veterinary associations and individuals of doctor of veterinary medicine all have their own thoughts. Even your own employees may have strong opinions, of which you are not aware.

Other articles in this publication present the scientific evidence and legal issues guiding the informed practitioner to a logical action plan for his/her practice. This article will not address what is or is not a proper vaccine protocol. Rather, it offers suggestions for adeptly managing client inquiries and efficiently communicating correct, unbiased information in accord with your practice's preventative medicine protocols.

We know the answers to these questions. As consultants, we often pose as undercover agents at practice owners' requests. We call practices as prospective clients, asking everything from prices for a spay or neuter to whether vaccines are necessary or not.

We have called practices located in the east, west, north and south. The answer to the vaccine question, although varied, carries one common theme: Each employee has very specific opinions on the subject that are not necessarily based in fact or practice protocols. After discussing our findings with each practitioner, we discovered not all voiced receptionist opinions equaled that of the doctors'.

Conflicting information With Internet access, magazines, newspapers and television, your clients have probably seen, read and formed an opinion already as to whether their pets should be vaccinated yearly, every three years, or not at all. Perhaps your employees have similarly come to their own conclusions, without specific and ongoing guidance through clearly communicated practice policies.

When veterinary hospital receptionists are cold-called about vaccinations, they do not necessarily have the insight to know where the client's opinion is currently situated. A receptionist who states without qualification that vaccines must be given as in prior years, can easily lose the client who has concern based on personal research leading to a different conclusion.

On the other side of the coin, the receptionist who says, "Yes, veterinarians have been over-vaccinating all these years and we are changing our protocol," may have just lost the client fearful of her pet ending up with some deadly disease due to inadequate protection. Besides, receptionists communicating the message that the veterinary industry has been over-vaccinating can be misinterpreted by some clients as admittance to unnecessary procedures historically recommended strictly for practice cash inflow benefit.

Consider this true and actual response to our vaccination question by a hospital receptionist: "The whole vaccination question is blown way out of proportion. Your cat absolutely needs to be vaccinated every year. We guarantee that nothing bad will happen to it from vaccines."

Guarantee? Think of the lawsuit if my pet had had an allergic reaction to the vaccination and died. State laws may be changing rapidly to define clients as "caregivers" rather than simply owners of chattel property. Such eventuality opens the hospital to higher probabilities of liability lawsuits that extend to emotional loss rewards.

Don't think this is happening in your practice? Think again. All doctors we spoke to after clandestine calls, were surprised at the misinformation and personal opinions their practice receptionists provided. Within the same practice entities, different employees communicated widely varying recommendations.