logic behind not shaving a dog for routine blood draw

[unsaint32]

I understand not shaving if the owner objects, but why don't vets even offer a choice to the owners? I cannot find anything that would justify this common practice of not shaving the dogs. With humans, veni-puncture would always require shaving and alcohol wipe in order to prevent introducing germs into the blood circulation. Do dogs have a higher immune system than humans? Sepsis could be fatal. Why do veterinarians ignore this seemingly unnecessary and potentially serious liability? Thanks.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Lissarae06]

I understand not shaving if the owner objects, but why don't vets even offer a choice to the owners? I cannot find anything that would justify this common practice of not shaving the dogs. With humans, veni-puncture would always require shaving and alcohol wipe in order to prevent introducing germs into the blood circulation. Do dogs have a higher immune system than humans? Sepsis could be fatal. Why do veterinarians ignore this seemingly unnecessary and potentially serious liability? Thanks.

I have never been shaved for venipuncture. Do you be trollin'?

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

I understand not shaving if the owner objects, but why don't vets even offer a choice to the owners? I cannot find anything that would justify this common practice of not shaving the dogs. With humans, veni-puncture would always require shaving and alcohol wipe in order to prevent introducing germs into the blood circulation. Do dogs have a higher immune system than humans? Sepsis could be fatal. Why do veterinarians ignore this seemingly unnecessary and potentially serious liability? Thanks.

We usually at least give an alcohol wipe. And a sterile needle is used. But I've never, ever, ever seen a dog get septic from a simple jug stick. Obviously, if the dog is super dirty and hairy, yeah,we'll clean more.

The reason it's done in human medicine, IMO, is due to liability. If in the extreme, rare case, a person somehow gets septic from a tiny blood draw, they can sue for millions and say "you didn't use disinfectant!!"

As long as the skin is basically clean, you aren't going to get septic from a blood draw. If this was a common thing, people would get septic from every single cut/scrape they got.

Think about how many times people injure themselves and draw blood, and how often those people get septic - almost never, unless they are immunosuppressed. Every time you cut yourself, a tiny amount skin bacteria will probably enter your circulation. Fact of life. That is what an immune system is there for.

 

[StartingoverVet]

I was just in the hospital and seriously at risk of infection and they drew blood from my hands MANY times and never shaved. Of course they swabbed. I am sure of this even with the drugs because I remember every bandage pulling some more hairs out.

 

[unsaint32]

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/member.php?u=87446 Although a cut would make the blood flow out, I clearly understand that the chance of sepsis from venipuncture is very very small. That's why I used the word in my posting (as you have also indicated) "liability." Compared to the enormity of the liability, shaving a little area is a simple task. Again, my question... why do vets take this liability? I guess that is because a litigation involving dog sepsis would be less damaging than if it was a human. So, now I understand. It's a business practice. I just wanted to confirm that. Most consumers, like myself, don't know this. So, would you let your child get a blood sample with out alcohol swipe since the chance of sepsis is slim? Absolutely not. I would like to ask future veterinarians to keep in mind that some dog owners truly regard their pets as their children. At least asking the owners if they want the area shaved to maximize the safety would be appreciated.

 

[DVMDream]

:troll:

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/member.php?u=87446 Although a cut would make the blood flow out, I clearly understand that the chance of sepsis from venipuncture is very very small. That's why I used the word in my posting (as you have also indicated) "liability." Compared to the enormity of the liability, shaving a little area is a simple task. Again, my question... why do vets take this liability? I guess that is because a litigation involving dog sepsis would be less damaging than if it was a human. So, now I understand. It's a business practice. I just wanted to confirm that. Most consumers, like myself, don't know this. So, would you let your child get a blood sample with out alcohol swipe since the chance of sepsis is slim? Absolutely not. I would like to ask future veterinarians to keep in mind that some dog owners truly regard their pets as their children. At least asking the owners if they want the area shaved to maximize the safety would be appreciated.

? No....it's not a business practice...it's just unnecessary unless the dog is obviously dirty.

FYI, just because blood "flows out" with a cut, doesn't mean that bacteria are not introduced.

The chance of sepsis is not just "slim", it's a ridiculously, ridiculusly low. Would you make everyone who handles your child or animal wear gloves? What about for taking temperatures? Something falls on the floor? Don't eat it, it'll make you septic!But seriously....it's not really necessary. The reason we take this "liability" is because the chances of anything happening are practically nil.

If we were to take every single thing, no matter how incredibly rare, seriously, we'd be gowned up and wearing masks like surgeons for everything. We would never do ANY surgery unless is was absolutely necessary, because well, you know there is the risk of the animal dying under anesthesia! No more dentals, spays, neuters, mass removals, biopsies, orthopedic surgery to relieve pain and restor quality of life, nothing. No more medications for conditions unless absolutely necessary, because one in one million dogs may have a reaction. Etc.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

By the way, you also realize that the tiny, quick alcohol swab that the nurse uses does absolutely nothing. A swipe of alcohol does NOT kill all the bugs. In fact, unless it is left on for at least 5-10 minutes, it does absolutely nothing. You need a full iodine scrub for sterility. It is done simply for liability and so the vein stands out better.

 

[Lissarae06]

Although a cut would make the blood flow out, I clearly understand that the chance of sepsis from venipuncture is very very small. That's why I used the word in my posting (as you have also indicated) "liability." Compared to the enormity of the liability, shaving a little area is a simple task. Again, my question... why do vets take this liability? I guess that is because a litigation involving dog sepsis would be less damaging than if it was a human. So, now I understand. It's a business practice. I just wanted to confirm that. Most consumers, like myself, don't know this. So, would you let your child get a blood sample with out alcohol swipe since the chance of sepsis is slim? Absolutely not. I would like to ask future veterinarians to keep in mind that some dog owners truly regard their pets as their children. At least asking the owners if they want the area shaved to maximize the safety would be appreciated.

I'm sorry but does shaving actually help keep bacteria out all that much? No. Shaving is not an antiseptic. Vet/techs, use alcohol on the blood draws, at least most of them do. Now quit trolling.

 

[Lissarae06]

By the way, you also realize that the tiny, quick alcohol swab that the nurse uses does absolutely nothing. A swipe of alcohol does NOT kill all the bugs. In fact, unless it is left on for at least 5-10 minutes, it does absolutely nothing. You need a full iodine scrub for sterility. It is done simply for liability and so the vein stands out better.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

Liability and patient comfort, that is. People like seeing the alcohol because they think it makes it sterile - this is not the truth in reality. Not at all. We've just become so accustomed to being scared of germs, the little alchohol wipe gives the patient comfort even though it does not "sterilize" anything - at least definitely not to the degree you're talking about wanting.

 

[RadRadTerp]

There are also some clinicians who believe that wiping and "wetting" the surface mobilizes/loosens surface flora and makes them more easily introduced through venipucture and actually recommend against the practice of wiping.

 

[TigerWillow]

Also, I feel most people don't like having their animal shaved bc it takes so long for the fur to grow back in. My own mother was put out by the large amount the vet shaved off when they spayed my cat! Come on, mom.


Just a thought. Most people don't ask for their animal to be shaved. They rather have the opposite.

 

[PppermintTwist]

By the way, you also realize that the tiny, quick alcohol swab that the nurse uses does absolutely nothing. A swipe of alcohol does NOT kill all the bugs. In fact, unless it is left on for at least 5-10 minutes, it does absolutely nothing. You need a full iodine scrub for sterility. It is done simply for liability and so the vein stands out better.

 

[twelvetigers]

How about the fact that Mrs. Smith doesn't want a big bald spot on her impeccably groomed dog's neck/leg?

Or the fact that clippers could terrify an animal to the point that the draw is so much more difficult, or that the staff at risk of bites or scratches?

Not only is it unnecessary, it could even be a bad thing.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

How about the fact that Mrs. Smith doesn't want a big bald spot on her impeccably groomed dog's neck/leg?

Also, I feel most people don't like having their animal shaved bc it takes so long for the fur to grow back in. My own mother was put out by the large amount the vet shaved off when they spayed my cat! Come on, mom.


Just a thought. Most people don't ask for their animal to be shaved. They rather have the opposite.

To be fair, the OP was talking about offering the option, not just going ahead and doing it. But all the arguments for the complete lack of necessity of doing it still stand, obviously.

Or the fact that clippers could terrify an animal to the point that the draw is so much more difficult, or that the staff at risk of bites or scratches?

Not only is it unnecessary, it could even be a bad thing.

Yep. Seen a dog struggle so much it fell off the table and almost broke a leg. I'd definitely take a 0.00001% of sepsis over a 50/50 chance of a broken bone and 50/50 chance of danger to my staff.

 

[CanHardlyWait]

:troll:

I second this
Some people are never gonna be happy....

 

[nyanko]

Listen guy.

I work in a veterinary microbiology diagnostic lab. We run blood cultures collected via venipuncture from non-clipped sites. The blood drawn is put into very enriched liquid media that is meant to allow for massive proliferation of any organisms present. Presumably, if there were enough organisms to cause sepsis on the needle during the collection procedure, these organisms would be present in the media at 24 and 48 hours and we'd routinely see false contamination on the cultures obtained from this media. We don't. There's just no evidence that it's worth the stress to the animal due to additional time being restrained and the procedure of clipping itself.

Plus unless you're routinely sterilizing your clippers, getting just slightly too close is going to cause some little microcuts that probably introduce more bacteria too, and your little alcohol swipe isn't going to negate that. There really is no reason to do it.

 

[Chebanse]

Liability and patient comfort, that is. People like seeing the alcohol because they think it makes it sterile - this is not the truth in reality. Not at all. We've just become so accustomed to being scared of germs, the little alchohol wipe gives the patient comfort even though it does not "sterilize" anything - at least definitely not to the degree you're talking about wanting.

I worked for a couple human doctors that admitted the only reason they use alcohol swabs in human medicine before venipuncture is to make people feel more comfortable, but it actually does nothing.

 

[LetItSnow]

Again, my question... why do vets take this liability?

What liability? Has a vet ever been sued because of an allegedly blood-draw based iatrogenic infection? It's not a liability just because you don't like it.

So, would you let your child get a blood sample with out alcohol swipe since the chance of sepsis is slim?

Absolutely, and without any concern whatsoever. The alcohol that's swabbed on there briefly has almost no effect on the pathogens. As to why we do it? I actually don't on my own dogs whose veins I'm pretty familiar with. I've heard some people argue that we do it because it makes owners feel more comfortable. I've heard a few people suggest that we do it because it slicks down the fur so it's easier to see/feel/find the vein.

At least asking the owners if they want the area shaved to maximize the safety would be appreciated.

In general, I think it's a bad idea to let (probably) untrained clients dictate how medical procedures are done. I would much rather explain to them why I'm doing what I'm doing than I would alter procedures unnecessarily. This isn't the best example in the world, because it really doesn't matter whether it's shaved or not, but there are plenty of procedures clients would be more 'comfortable' having done differently, but where safety doesn't allow that. (In particular, I've found some people to be very uncomfortable with anesthesia protocols and procedures.)

So in general, my approach would be education.

 

[sooprnova]

It's probably just to make you mad.

 

[Samoa]

Actually, studies in humans show that shaving actually *increases* the risk of infection. Some neurosurgeons don't even clip head hair before operating.

 

[Abnerrs]

I read the original post and was ready with a rather lengthy and scathing reply, but my super intelligent, wonderful SDN family has already taken care of that. Good job guys!!

 

[david594]

I understand not shaving if the owner objects, but why don't vets even offer a choice to the owners? I cannot find anything that would justify this common practice of not shaving the dogs. With humans, veni-puncture would always require shaving and alcohol wipe in order to prevent introducing germs into the blood circulation. Do dogs have a higher immune system than humans? Sepsis could be fatal. Why do veterinarians ignore this seemingly unnecessary and potentially serious liability? Thanks.

Your missing the simple and obvious answer here that applies to the decision making process of any medical related procedure. The risks associated with shaving an animal are greater than the risk of sepsis from not shaving. Even in a healthy animal its possible to do damage to the skin with a pair of clipper blades. Much more likely when you have a sick animal or worn clipper blades. Shaving can also be irritating to the skin which can lead to the animal causing self trauma to the area.


I read your post and all I can picture is a lawyer with a client who thinks a vet killed their seriously ill animal after they drew blood on it without shaving...

 

[bandierose]

1. As mentioned the risk is neglibly low. Even human med doesn't shave.
2. Shaving usally stresses animals out. This makes them harder to handle and more of a danger to us and themselves.
3. Shaving and an alcohol bath vs. just an alcohol bath probably has a limited difference in sterility (as in they are both not sterile).
4. I know almost no one who would volunteer to have their pet shaved.

 

[ANY2003]

In general, I think it's a bad idea to let (probably) untrained clients dictate how medical procedures are done.

YES! Why WOULD any vet offer the option of shaving their pet to a client? Doesn't make ANY sense (for reasons already addressed by others). I personally find it irksome when *untrained* people come in and demand that procedures be followed a certain way. For example, one time a lady refused to let us take her dog to the back for a blood draw because of the dog's "anxiety without her." After much debating and informing the owner why we need to take her pet to the back, she wouldn't agree so the vet did the blood draw in the room. The pet freaked out, ended up knocking over the assistant who was restraining, who knocked the owner into a wall and her head started to bleed. Listening to the owner, instead of following protocol, actually INCREASED liability. What pet owners need to realize that it's ok to ask questions, but generally the vet does things a certain way because it's in the best interest of the pet.

 

[pooter]

It's probably just to make you mad.

 

[CAM the RAM]

They gave me a Brazillian before a blood draw when I was in the hospital. I thought it was odd but I figured they knew what they were doing. So, why fight it?

 

[nordicat]

They gave me a Brazillian before a blood draw when I was in the hospital. I thought it was odd but I figured they knew what they were doing. So, why fight it?

 

[StartingoverVet]

They gave me a Brazillian before a blood draw when I was in the hospital. I thought it was odd but I figured they knew what they were doing. So, why fight it?

This sounds more like sexual harassment to me.

 

[modjeska]

Here's another reason not to shave: Some (anxious, obsessive) dogs like mine would freak. Before I adopted my Newfoundland, razor burn on his tail led to its eventual amputation. That was three years ago. Now we're battling another potential amputation due to a bug bite. If the vet shaved him for his hwt every year, he might not have legs at this point. Not every dog is as big a weirdo as mine, but I've met quite a few anxious lickers who might react similarly.

 

[PrincetonDogMom]

I think the person who started this message had some sort of preconception they wanted answered.

For me, a layperson, this has been very interesting. I feel like I have learned something and this is why I like this forum. Thanks for all your educational posts.

At the clinic I go to, the technicians always told me they "never"shaved unless absolutely necessary and I always thought it was just for aesthetic reasons. Now this makes more sense!

 

[sunshinevet]

Ok, I'm a bit puzzled now!

It's routine over here to clip for blood draws! No we don't have problems with animals flipping out - probably 1/100 has a problem with the clippers and these problems are solved with adequate restraint - the type you typically need for blood draws anyway. Never seen a severe case of clipper rash from a simple clip for blood draw either - only from sloppy nurses prepping for surgery.

If you tried to draw blood from an animal at the e-clinic in which I work without clipping and prepping the skin properly (ie, full chlorhex/ethanol scrub) you would be yelled at. Because our patients are sick enough. But then again, we also place catheters in everything, so typically we will draw for bloods from the cath hub and if we need more later, we use the three syringe method. Owners do not get a choice.

Please tell me you all clip for catheter placement?!?!

 

[Minnerbelle]

Because our patients are sick enough. But then again, we also place catheters in everything [...]

Please tell me you all clip for catheter placement?!?!

I think that IS the difference. I've never seen catheters placed without clipping. Depending on how long that catheter's expected to be there, I've seen +/- sterile prep at the clip site.

But for just in and out quickie blood draws, I've only seen animals shaved if there was difficulty hitting a vein (esp from the saphenous in little kitties).

One of my cats requires 4 vet techs to hold down just to clip out 1 little mat from her fuzzball. If we had to clip her every time she needed a blood draw, I'm sure both the vet and my parents would elect to skip on the procedure.

 

[Armymutt25A]

If the alcohol and shaving were to prevent the introduction of pathogens, then why don't you shave injection sites? Most injections today are sub-q and there is a hell of lot less immune components hanging out in that region than there is in the blood. On top of that, why would they swab the injection site for executions if it was just to prevent sepsis? Seems a little too The Princess Bride to me. Alcohol just makes the vein stand out better.

 

[Abnerrs]

I think that IS the difference. I've never seen catheters placed without clipping. Depending on how long that catheter's expected to be there, I've seen +/- sterile prep at the clip site.

But for just in and out quickie blood draws, I've only seen animals shaved if there was difficulty hitting a vein (esp from the saphenous in little kitties).

One of my cats requires 4 vet techs to hold down just to clip out 1 little mat from her fuzzball. If we had to clip her every time she needed a blood draw, I'm sure both the vet and my parents would elect to skip on the procedure.

I agree. Catheter placement is much different than a simple blood draw. Mainly from the point of exposure time. With a catheter you are holding the wound open for hours to days and therefore give ample time for pathogens to infiltrate the site. I can see the reason for an emergency clinic to do it this way since most of your patients are very sick but at the clinic I work at the highest number of blood draws I do are on young healthy animals for their neuter. Let me tell you these guys are squirmy enough without shaving lol

Sent from my SPH-M910 using SDN Mobile

 

[sunshinevet]

I fully appreciate that many vets might feel comfortable with performing a blood draw without clipping as they don't feel there is a significant infection risk - however in 7 years nursing in both general and emergency practice I've met few pets that flip out at clippers to such a huge degree that it would make us not clip. So I guess I don't see adversion to clippers as a reason not to clip.

I guess I personally feel that dog/cat skin is not like human skin - they don't shower every day, it isn't as clean. The only way I can clean their skin sufficiently to feel ok with sticking a needle in their vein - bypassing many of their lines of defense - is by clipping the hair off it so I can cleanse the skin sufficiently. I'm not saying I've never drawn blood from a healthy animal without clipping, just in a patient that I feel in any way compromised I don't feel comfortable with it. Many of the other factors - compromise due to clipper rash - can be controlled by good clipper maintainence and use. If other people feel comfortable with not clipping, I guess thats good for them. I don't want anyone else reading these boards to think that NO ONE clips for venepucture when in my fairly extensive experience, many do.

FWIW, in our really critical patients, we will clip and prep areas for subcut/im injections if we need to - but we try to avoid medications via these routes in really ill animals. But in the EMCC place im at, we are a bit anal about these things

I certainly don't think anyone here has had multiple patients keel over with sepsis - I think people would change their protocols if they did haha! I'm just starting to think more and more about the little things and how I would like to do them when I graduate.

 

[LetItSnow]

I guess I personally feel that dog/cat skin is not like human skin - they don't shower every day, it isn't as clean.

That argument kinda works against your point. Part of the problem with cleaning the skin is that you eliminate commensal bacteria that are happily living there not causing a problem, and create the opportunity for pathogenic bacteria to overgrow.

FWIW, in our really critical patients

I don't think 'really critical patients' are the issue here. Obviously, a critical patient is going to have issues that may require higher sterility. And, a critical patient is far more likely to have a catheter placed.

 

[DVMDream]

I fully appreciate that many vets might feel comfortable with performing a blood draw without clipping as they don't feel there is a significant infection risk - however in 7 years nursing in both general and emergency practice I've met few pets that flip out at clippers to such a huge degree that it would make us not clip. So I guess I don't see adversion to clippers as a reason not to clip.

I guess I personally feel that dog/cat skin is not like human skin - they don't shower every day, it isn't as clean. The only way I can clean their skin sufficiently to feel ok with sticking a needle in their vein - bypassing many of their lines of defense - is by clipping the hair off it so I can cleanse the skin sufficiently. I'm not saying I've never drawn blood from a healthy animal without clipping, just in a patient that I feel in any way compromised I don't feel comfortable with it. Many of the other factors - compromise due to clipper rash - can be controlled by good clipper maintainence and use. If other people feel comfortable with not clipping, I guess thats good for them. I don't want anyone else reading these boards to think that NO ONE clips for venepucture when in my fairly extensive experience, many do.

FWIW, in our really critical patients, we will clip and prep areas for subcut/im injections if we need to - but we try to avoid medications via these routes in really ill animals. But in the EMCC place im at, we are a bit anal about these things

I certainly don't think anyone here has had multiple patients keel over with sepsis - I think people would change their protocols if they did haha! I'm just starting to think more and more about the little things and how I would like to do them when I graduate.

I have also been working in vet clinics as a veterinary technician for 7 years. I have seen plenty of animals flip out because of the sound of clippers. However, the majority of them are fine. We do not clip for a simple blood draw, it is unnecessary unless you are having a difficult time locating the vein. I have yet to see a pet get sepsis from a simple venipuncture due to not shaving. I have seen pets get insanely horrible skin infections from us clipping and scrubbing the area before placing a catheter simply because the pet will not stop licking the area. Most owners are unaware that their pet's insane licking of the area we shaved can cause a problem and I have seen some bad infections because of it. The shaved area bothers quite a few pets and scrubbing the area as much as we do can leave it even more irritating and raw. One of our doctors tries to shave as little as possible before placing a catheter because she has seen more severe infections from a pet licking at the area once the catheter is out than a pet going into sepsis from our placing of the catheter (which has never happened).

IMO, I think it is unnecessary to shave for a simple blood draw. It has the potential to do more harm than good.

 

[Emiloo4]

I have also been working in vet clinics as a veterinary technician for 7 years. I have seen plenty of animals flip out because of the sound of clippers. However, the majority of them are fine. We do not clip for a simple blood draw, it is unnecessary unless you are having a difficult time locating the vein. I have yet to see a pet get sepsis from a simple venipuncture due to not shaving. I have seen pets get insanely horrible skin infections from us clipping and scrubbing the area before placing a catheter simply because the pet will not stop licking the area. Most owners are unaware that their pet's insane licking of the area we shaved can cause a problem and I have seen some bad infections because of it. The shaved area bothers quite a few pets and scrubbing the area as much as we do can leave it even more irritating and raw. One of our doctors tries to shave as little as possible before placing a catheter because she has seen more severe infections from a pet licking at the area once the catheter is out than a pet going into sepsis from our placing of the catheter (which has never happened).

IMO, I think it is unnecessary to shave for a simple blood draw. It has the potential to do more harm than good.

I was coming on to write this, but you did it for me . We had a dog come in for a spay once, and 5 months later had to amputate her leg because she started licking the shave site and never stopped. She literally chewed her leg to the bone (It was really, really disgusting to watch her eat herself ). It all started with that shaved catheter spot.
I have never seen an animal go sepsis from a blood draw or catheter placement. So although leg amputations from shaving irritation are obviously not common, they are more common than sepsis from not shaving... in my experience!

 

[sunshinevet]

I don't think 'really critical patients' are the issue here. Obviously, a critical patient is going to have issues that may require higher sterility. And, a critical patient is far more likely to have a catheter placed.

Absolutely a critical patient should have a catheter placed. I just wanted to add some potentially broader perspective to the discussion - clearly we are not just addressing the op's question here so why not add information on varied patients?

I have also been working in vet clinics as a veterinary technician for 7 years. I have seen plenty of animals flip out because of the sound of clippers. However, the majority of them are fine.

Which was my point. To me "some patients flip out" is not adequate reasoning in my opinion to not clip in ALL patients.

I have yet to see a pet get sepsis from a simple venipuncture due to not shaving.

I didn't say I had seen it either - in fact I said I doubted that anyone here had.

I have seen pets get insanely horrible skin infections from us clipping and scrubbing the area before placing a catheter simply because the pet will not stop licking the area. Most owners are unaware that their pet's insane licking of the area we shaved can cause a problem and I have seen some bad infections because of it. The shaved area bothers quite a few pets and scrubbing the area as much as we do can leave it even more irritating and raw. One of our doctors tries to shave as little as possible before placing a catheter because she has seen more severe infections from a pet licking at the area once the catheter is out than a pet going into sepsis from our placing of the catheter (which has never happened).

I think if your patient is able to lick at its leg so much that it gets a horrible skin infection, thats poor patient management. Obviously I understand owners are not always as attentive - but if it was a common complication I was seeing, I would probably start warning owners to watch for it and call us/ come get an ecollar if the dog was licking at it often. And if scrubbing the area results in raw, irritated, infected skin, you're scrubbing too hard - you only have to remove surface dirt, then its your contact time which actually provides sterility.

I have seen numerous "fevers of unknown origin" (lol) which have been traced back to catheters just in the last few months. Catheter site prepartion and management really does go a long way - and its so little effort for what can avoid a lot of trouble.

Once again, im not saying its ABSOLUTELY NESSERCERRY to clip for blood draw. I am saying that some people definately do - without complications - and some people definately don't - similarly without complications. I feel comfortable with my blood draw protocols and preps and my catheter protocols and preps - both of which have been developed by critical care specialists.

Obviously if I had some lab in with gross reactive skin I would not clip for a simple blood draw. Obviously your protocols should be adaptable for your particular patient. And I do think we should be interested in these discussions - we have a lot to learn from each others protocols and reasonings behind it etc. And I do feel we should be regularly critically evaluating a lot of our protocols, including the little ones.

 

[nyanko]

Which was my point. To me "some patients flip out" is not adequate reasoning in my opinion to not clip in ALL patients.

And you have not yet given adequate evidence that supports clipping in all patients.

 

[DVMDream]

I think if your patient is able to lick at its leg so much that it gets a horrible skin infection, thats poor patient management. Obviously I understand owners are not always as attentive - but if it was a common complication I was seeing, I would probably start warning owners to watch for it and call us/ come get an ecollar if the dog was licking at it often. And if scrubbing the area results in raw, irritated, infected skin, you're scrubbing too hard - you only have to remove surface dirt, then its your contact time which actually provides sterility.

I can't manage a patient once it leaves the clinic. Warning owners only goes so far...most of them think a little lick won't hurt a thing. I have had owners tell me that they think their pet's licking of their spay/neuter incision should help it heal... I can only warn them so much, the rest is in their hands. As far as the scrubbing, it does only remove surface debris but you can not tell me that you haven't seen pet's skin turn red while scrubbing it before placing a catheter (think white pit bull). I think you are basing all of your information off a critical care standpoint. Yes, if I worked in a critical care area where 100% of my patients are seriously ill I would be more worried about chances of infections. I don't though. Most of the pets I am doing simple blood draws are healthy or have a condition that requires follow up bloodwork (thyroid, phenobarb level, etc).

 

[sunshinevet]

And you have not yet given adequate evidence that supports clipping in all patients.

If you read all of my previous post you would realise that I never said that there was. But to rule out clipping in all patients due to behavioural nuiances in a minority is poor reasoning to me.

 

[DVMDream]

If you read all of my previous post you would realise that I never said that there was. But to rule out clipping in all patients due to behavioural nuiances in a minority is poor reasoning to me.

I believe everyone here has given more support than just behavioral reasons for not clipping for a simple blood draw.

 

[Emiloo4]

If you read all of my previous post you would realise that I never said that there was. But to rule out clipping in all patients due to behavioural nuiances in a minority is poor reasoning to me.

I believe everyone here has given more support than just behavioral reasons for not clipping for a simple blood draw.

We are giving you many reasons. Just because someone focuses on one reason and gives you adequate information on it, doesn't mean they think it's the only reason. I'm pretty sure you are the person who has given only one reason about your opinion. We have given you multiple reasons why we disagree with it.

 

[Jamr0ckin]

I guess I'm pretty neutral on this topic. We always shave for catheters, and shave often for blood draws.

I have seen probably <10 patients have severe reactions to shaving limbs - and abx and an e-collar have been sufficent treatments for most of them.

We normally don't shave for a cephalic or lateral saphenous vein, but for jugular sticks and medial saphenous, we shave fairly regularly. In my experience, the advantages of shaving (less time restraining patient, quicker blood draw, less pokes on patient, etc) far outweigh the risks of a small shaved area.

I have never shaved for a IM or SQ injection, even in very critical patients, but that is just my personal experience.

 

[Abnerrs]

I think, for me, we have lost sight of the original post. There are up sides and down sides to both shaving and not shaving. I almost never shave. I don't draw on sight, I go on feel in most cases so I don't need to see the vein puff up, and even a bull dog neck I just draw based on the knowledge of (normal) vein placement in the body. I only ever shave if it is something like a husky neck or for catheter placement.

The original post however, how I took it when I read it, is that vets and techs are placing animals in unnecessary danger by not shaving for routine blood draws which is false.

 

[Jamr0ckin]

The original post however, how I took it when I read it, is that vets and techs are placing animals in unnecessary danger by not shaving for routine blood draws which is false.

Yes, agreed.

 

[RadRadTerp]

If you read all of my previous post you would realise that I never said that there was. But to rule out clipping in all patients due to behavioural nuiances in a minority is poor reasoning to me.

Straw man. No one has made that argument. The point was that every situation is different and that there are reasons for not shaving, just as there are reasons for it. You seem to be arguing against an extreme position that no one has put forth.