ROOFUS’S SIDE EFFECTS AFTER BEING DISPENSED MEDICATION WITHOUT MEDICAL OVERSIGHT

All symptoms NOT SEEN before taking the medication:

• Increased hunger, thirst, pooping (incl. multiple indoor accidents for a dog who is toilet trained)
• Insomnia
• Agitation
• Highly erratic behaviour
• Intense restlessness and pacing
• Dilated pupils with a wild-eyed look
• Unusual head digging and body rolling/thrashing
• Tense, repetitive mouth movements that seemed more stress-driven than playful
• Distress at seemingly being unable to control his own body as a result of the dispensed medication and not understanding why he was feeling the way he was
• Crying, yelping, howling for hours when the carer went behind a baby gate after concerns of Roofus’s medically induced state, which didn’t stop until the carer removed the baby gate

Trigger warning: Here is a video of Roofus distressed after the carer decided to physically separate by going behind a babygate, and going to a room far away out of Roofus’s line of sight. Roofus remained in this distressed state for hours, until the carer stopped the physical separation. As the carer was co-sleeping with Roofus due to his increased night-time anxiety, they were concerned with his medically induced behaviour

HOW WAS ROOFUS GIVEN THIS MEDICATION WITHOUT MEDICAL OVERSIGHT?

• The shelter organisation is divided into a shelter team and vet team, and his carer was denied access to speak directly to a vet to discuss medical side effects and dosing instructions or take Roofus in for a consult due to their ‘adherence to a Fear Free Policy, which meant Roofus was too anxious for an in-person vet consult’
• Instead of an in-person vet consult, the shelter asked the carer to pick up the medications from the clinic so the carer arranged for a neighbour to watch Roofus (due to the shelter coordinator informing the carer Roofus was scared of car rides)
• The shelter dispensed this medication without seeing Roofus directly – as the shelter explained that Roofus’s anxiety prevented him from having any in-person vet consults or assessments
• When the carer arrived at the shelter clinic to pick up his medication and asked to speak to a vet about side effects, a shelter staff member went into a closed room “to speak to the vet” on the carer’s behalf, and repeated the same information as on the label, which didn’t mention Roofus’s experienced side effects
• The medicine bottles that the carer picked up were re-used bottles with new labels slapped on over older labels and no vet name as the prescriber – one of the bottles just had a handwritten medication name written but unfortunately the carer didn't have the presence of mind to keep the bottle once the contents were finished

AT WHAT POINT DOES A VET GET INVOLVED?

• The morning after receiving Roofus’s carer messages about the severe distress was experiencing as a result of the dispensed medications
• For transparency, here is the (redacted) SMS exchange with the vet clinic number
  • On the night of the adverse reaction
  • The morning after the adverse reaction
• Here is the after-hours emergency vet procedures document provided to the carer
  • The following statements from the after-hours document are baffling:
    • ‘SDCH functions with limited financial resources’–  while reporting an after-tax surplus of $477,457 in 2024 and $474,378 in 2023 (SDCH annual report)
    • ‘In the case of an after-hours emergency we ask that you provide stabilisation and supportive care, with a view to handing the case to the SDCH veterinarians the following morning’ – shouldn’t anything considered ‘emergency’ warrant professional support?
    • ‘We appreciate that in some cases euthanasia is the most humane outcome for an animal and we trust your judgment as to whether this is required immediately.’ – How could an animal that is at risk of being euthanised immediately without shelter consent/awareness be in foster care? Shouldn’t the animal be properly treated in shelter first so that immediate euthanisation isn’t a risk? Wouldn’t there be preventable euthanisations?
    • ‘Please be advised that only SDCH management can authorise extensive or nonessential veterinary care as SDCH will be covering all costs incurred. Foster carers are not permitted to authorise nonessential care and SDCH will not cover nonessential costs authorised by foster carers.’ – considering that fosters are supposed to provide stablisation and supportive care in emergencies, what would the shelter consider ‘nonessential veterinarian care’ that a foster is to pay for?

HOW CAN AN ANIMAL NOT HAVE ANY MEDICAL RECORDS? OR BE PRESCRIBED MEDICATION SIGHT UNSEEN?

• Since taking in Roofus, the carer repeatedly asked the shelter team for Roofus’s medical records, especially as they were adopting Roofus and wanted continuity of care, but was told by the shelter that there were no medical records or background notes
• Since the carer first received Roofus, they repeatedly raised medical concerns to the shelter team but had their concerns minimised to ‘shelter stress’

WHAT MEDICAL CONCERNS WERE RAISED BY THE CARER?

• They raised concerns about Roofus’s blistered paws, eating difficulties, soft stools, suspected food allergies, difficulty sleeping overnight, and extreme anxiety shortly after his arrival.

WHAT DID THE CARER LEARN ON THAT ONE CALL WITH THE VET?

• Roofus’s adverse reaction to the medication made sense because of his dysregulated and fragile nervous system
• Roofus’s paw injury had been treated previously with antibiotics during his time in-shelter but there was no information once he entered foster care
• His current anxiety medication “doesn’t even touch the sides”
• Roofus may require long-term anxiety management and needed to have a proper assessment to determine the appropriate medication requirements
• His diet should likely shift to hypoallergenic food as this may be what's aggravating his gut and also the paws
• That of course there are some notes on Roofus, he would’ve come from the council with some intake notes
• Here are the vet’s reasons why Roofus didn’t receive continuity of care
  • “Roofus was only in the shelter for one week.”
  • “Fosters didn’t inform us about his medical condition.”
  • “I wasn’t aware fosters weren’t informed either.”
  • “I was on holiday during part of this time.”
  • “His care was split between multiple vets, there isn’t just one vet responsible.”
  • “The vet and shelter teams are not sharing notes.”

DID THE MEDICAL NIGHTMARE END AFTER THE CONVERSATION WITH THE VET?

• After the carer’s first conversation with the vet, the shelter manager, who is not a medical professional for animals or humans, took over all communications, which involved
  • Not passing on medical concerns from the carer to the vet
  • Not discussing with the vet appropriate treatments specific to Roofus
  • Not passing on side effect information and dosing instructions from the vet to the carer
    Not allowing direct access to the vet to discuss side effect concerns related to a new prescription medication
  • Giving medical advice
• The shelter manager resisted written communications but the carer explained that written communication was essential and non-negotiable considering SDCH’s inconsistent/inaccurate paper trail was a key factor in these issues

CARER RAISED SIDE EFFECT CONCERNS WITH NEWLY DISPENSED MEDICATION WITH THE SHELTER MANAGER BUT HAD THEM DISMISSED

• To continue treatment of Roofus’s conditions, the shelter manager arranged for an unnamed staff to drop off the medications
• The carer raised medical concerns but had these concerns dismissed
• For transparency, here is the full (redacted) SMS exchange with the shelter manager

ROOFUS SEIZED AFTER CARER RAISED RISKY PRESCRIBING PRACTICES

• Carer asked to discuss treatment plan with vet after having side effect concerns dismissed by the shelter manager, who is not a medical professional for animals or humans
• The carer was concerned about Roofus’s wellbeing since he was being tapered off the previous medication and hadn’t slept much since starting that one
• Considering the vet agreed that Roofus’s pre-existing nervous system dysregulation increased the risk of side effects with medications that worked through the central nervous system (CNS), the carer was concerned about administering another medication that worked through the CNS and wanted to discuss with the vet
• The shelter manager did not respond to the carer’s concerns about side effects, but a quick internet check revealed the new medication was known to have the side effects they were concerned about: agitation, restlessness, hyperactivity, and insomnia
• When the carer didn’t receive a reply to their requests to speak with a vet, the carer asked:
  • if Roofus’s medical file was referred to
  • who the prescribing vet was
  • if the vet was the same vet that they had spoken to on the morning after the adverse reaction
  • if the carer’s medical concerns were passed onto the vet
• For transparency, here is the full (redacted) SMS exchange with the shelter manager