Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the RVT to interpret complex hematological data in the context of a patient’s clinical presentation and then communicate critical findings to a veterinarian. The RVT must balance the need for accurate diagnostic information with the ethical imperative to act within their scope of practice and ensure appropriate veterinary oversight. Misinterpretation or miscommunication could lead to delayed or incorrect treatment, impacting patient welfare. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves meticulously reviewing the complete blood count (CBC) results, correlating them with the blood smear findings, and then presenting a comprehensive, objective summary of these findings to the supervising veterinarian. This approach ensures that the veterinarian receives all relevant diagnostic information in a clear and organized manner, allowing them to make informed clinical decisions. This aligns with the ethical responsibility of the RVT to provide accurate diagnostic support and to communicate effectively with the veterinary team, respecting the veterinarian’s ultimate diagnostic and treatment authority. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Presenting only the CBC values without integrating the blood smear findings is professionally unacceptable because it omits crucial qualitative information. Blood smears allow for the assessment of cellular morphology, identification of parasites, and detection of abnormalities not always apparent in automated CBC counts. Failing to include this information provides an incomplete diagnostic picture. Reporting subjective interpretations of the blood smear findings directly to the owner without veterinary consultation is a significant ethical and regulatory failure. RVTs are not licensed to diagnose or prescribe treatment. This action oversteps the RVT’s scope of practice, potentially misleading the owner and undermining the veterinarian’s role. Focusing solely on the abnormal CBC values and neglecting to mention the blood smear findings, even if they appear normal, is also professionally deficient. A complete diagnostic assessment requires the integration of all available data. Even seemingly normal smear findings can provide valuable context or rule out certain conditions that might be suggested by CBC abnormalities. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should approach such situations by first ensuring they have a complete understanding of all available data (CBC and smear). They should then objectively document their findings, noting any discrepancies or significant observations. The next critical step is to communicate these findings clearly and concisely to the supervising veterinarian, highlighting any areas of concern or requiring further investigation. This structured approach ensures patient safety, adherence to professional standards, and effective team collaboration.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge because it requires the RVT to interpret complex clinical pathology results in the context of a specific patient’s condition and treatment plan. The challenge lies in synthesizing information from multiple sources (lab results, patient history, veterinarian’s orders) to make an informed recommendation, while also adhering to professional standards and ethical obligations regarding client communication and veterinary oversight. The RVT must exercise sound judgment to ensure patient welfare and maintain the integrity of the veterinary care team. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves the RVT meticulously reviewing the complete blood count (CBC) and serum biochemistry results, cross-referencing them with the patient’s signalment, clinical signs, and the prescribed treatment regimen. The RVT should then compile a concise summary of any significant findings that deviate from expected parameters or indicate a potential complication or lack of therapeutic response. This summary should be presented to the attending veterinarian for their review and final decision-making. This approach is correct because it upholds the RVT’s role as a skilled assistant to the veterinarian, ensuring that diagnostic interpretations are made within the scope of veterinary practice and that the veterinarian retains ultimate responsibility for patient diagnosis and treatment. It prioritizes accurate data synthesis and professional collaboration, aligning with ethical guidelines that emphasize the importance of veterinary supervision and the RVT’s supportive role. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach would be for the RVT to independently adjust the patient’s medication dosage based solely on their interpretation of the lab results. This is professionally unacceptable because it constitutes practicing veterinary medicine without a license, a direct violation of veterinary practice acts and RVT regulations. The RVT is not authorized to prescribe or alter medication regimens. Another incorrect approach would be for the RVT to dismiss the abnormal lab values as insignificant without further investigation or consultation with the veterinarian, especially if they appear to correlate with the patient’s clinical status. This failure to recognize and report potentially critical findings compromises patient care and violates the RVT’s ethical duty to act in the best interest of the animal. It also demonstrates a lack of critical thinking and diagnostic acumen. A third incorrect approach would be for the RVT to immediately communicate the perceived severity of the lab results directly to the client without prior consultation with the veterinarian. While client communication is important, doing so without veterinary input can lead to misinterpretation, undue client anxiety, and can undermine the veterinarian-client-patient relationship. It also bypasses the veterinarian’s role in client communication regarding diagnosis and treatment plans. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should approach such situations by first understanding their scope of practice and regulatory limitations. The decision-making process should involve a systematic review of all available data, followed by a collaborative consultation with the supervising veterinarian. When interpreting diagnostic results, RVTs should focus on identifying deviations from normal and their potential clinical relevance, preparing this information clearly for the veterinarian. Ethical considerations, particularly patient welfare and professional integrity, should guide all actions. If there is any doubt about the interpretation or appropriate next steps, seeking guidance from the veterinarian is paramount.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a common challenge for Registered Veterinary Technologists (RVTs) where a patient exhibits fear-based aggression during a routine procedure. The professional challenge lies in balancing the need to perform necessary veterinary care with the ethical and legal obligations to ensure the safety of the animal, the veterinary team, and the client, while also minimizing patient distress. Failure to handle such situations appropriately can lead to injury, compromised patient welfare, and potential legal repercussions for the veterinary practice and the RVT. Careful judgment is required to select the most humane and effective handling strategy. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a multi-modal approach that prioritizes de-escalation and patient comfort. This includes utilizing positive reinforcement techniques, such as offering high-value treats or praise, to create a more positive association with the handling. Environmental modifications, like dimming lights or reducing noise, can also significantly decrease a fearful animal’s stress levels. If the fear is severe, considering pre-visit medication or sedatives, in consultation with the veterinarian, is a responsible step to ensure the procedure can be completed safely and with minimal distress. This approach aligns with the ethical principles of veterinary technology, which emphasize minimizing animal suffering and promoting animal welfare. Furthermore, it adheres to best practices in animal behavior and handling, aiming to build trust and reduce the likelihood of future fear-based responses. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves proceeding with the procedure using only physical restraint without attempting to mitigate the animal’s fear or distress. This fails to uphold the ethical duty to minimize suffering and can be considered a violation of animal welfare principles. Such forceful handling can exacerbate fear and aggression, potentially leading to injury for both the animal and the handler, and can damage the human-animal bond. Another incorrect approach is to abandon the procedure entirely due to the animal’s fear without exploring alternative strategies or consulting with the veterinarian. While patient safety is paramount, a complete abandonment without further assessment or intervention may not be in the animal’s best interest if the procedure is medically necessary. This approach lacks proactive problem-solving and may indicate a failure to utilize available resources and knowledge to manage challenging behaviors. A third incorrect approach is to rely solely on aversive techniques or punishment to control the animal’s behavior. This is ethically unacceptable and often counterproductive. Aversive methods can increase fear, anxiety, and aggression, leading to a worsening of the behavioral issue and potential long-term psychological harm to the animal. It directly contradicts the principles of humane animal handling and can have legal ramifications if it constitutes animal cruelty or neglect. Professional Reasoning: When faced with a fearful and aggressive patient, the RVT should first assess the level of fear and aggression and the specific procedure required. The decision-making process should prioritize patient welfare and safety. This involves considering environmental modifications, positive reinforcement, and, if necessary, consulting with the veterinarian about pharmacological interventions. The goal is to achieve the necessary veterinary care in the least stressful and most humane manner possible, always adhering to ethical guidelines and regulatory standards for animal care and handling.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the RVT to interpret subtle behavioral cues in a distressed animal and respond in a manner that prioritizes both the animal’s welfare and the safety of the veterinary team. Misinterpreting these cues can lead to compromised patient care, increased stress for the animal, and potential injury to personnel. The RVT must balance immediate needs with long-term behavioral management strategies. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves a systematic observation of the animal’s body language, vocalizations, and overall demeanor to identify specific signs of fear, anxiety, or aggression. This approach is correct because it directly addresses the core of understanding animal behavior, allowing for a tailored and humane response. Ethically, this aligns with the principles of animal welfare, requiring the RVT to act in the best interest of the animal by minimizing stress and preventing harm. Regulatory frameworks for veterinary practice emphasize competent animal handling and care, which necessitates a thorough behavioral assessment before any intervention. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves immediately attempting to restrain the animal forcefully without first assessing its behavioral state. This fails to acknowledge the animal’s communication signals and can escalate fear and aggression, potentially leading to injury for both the animal and staff. This approach is ethically unsound as it prioritizes expediency over the animal’s welfare and can violate professional standards of care. Another incorrect approach is to rely solely on past experiences with similar breeds or species without individual assessment. While breed predispositions exist, each animal is an individual with unique experiences and current emotional states. This approach neglects the immediate behavioral context, potentially leading to misjudgments and inappropriate handling, which is a failure in professional duty of care. A further incorrect approach is to administer sedatives without a clear understanding of the underlying behavioral cause or a plan for subsequent management. While sedation can be a tool, it should not be a substitute for behavioral assessment and understanding. This approach can mask underlying issues, delay appropriate behavioral interventions, and may not fully address the animal’s distress, representing a superficial and potentially harmful intervention. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a tiered approach to animal behavior assessment. First, observe from a distance, noting posture, vocalizations, and environmental interactions. Second, approach cautiously, continuing to monitor for subtle changes. Third, based on these observations, select the least stressful and most effective handling and intervention strategy. This process ensures that decisions are informed by the animal’s current state, promoting welfare and safety, and adhering to professional and ethical obligations.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the Registered Veterinary Technologist (RVT) to balance the immediate need for restraint with the paramount importance of animal welfare and safety. Different species, and even individuals within a species, have unique behavioral responses to stress and handling. Failure to recognize and adapt handling techniques can lead to injury to the animal, the handler, or both, and can compromise the diagnostic or therapeutic goals of the procedure. Ethical considerations, particularly those related to minimizing pain and distress, are central to responsible veterinary practice. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a multi-modal approach that prioritizes minimizing stress and maximizing safety for both the animal and the handler. This includes a thorough pre-handling assessment of the animal’s temperament, species-specific behavioral cues, and the intended procedure. Utilizing appropriate, species-specific restraint equipment (e.g., muzzles, towels, gloves, specialized crates) and techniques that allow for gradual acclimatization and positive reinforcement, where feasible, are crucial. This approach aligns with the ethical principles of veterinary technology, which mandate providing compassionate care and avoiding unnecessary suffering. Regulatory guidelines, such as those promoted by veterinary technician associations and licensing boards, emphasize humane handling and the importance of handler competency in safe restraint. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves using excessive force or a single, rigid restraint method regardless of species or individual animal response. This fails to acknowledge species-specific behavioral differences and can lead to increased fear, anxiety, and potential injury. Ethically, this demonstrates a disregard for animal welfare and a failure to uphold the principle of minimizing distress. Regulatory bodies would view such practices as unprofessional and potentially abusive. Another incorrect approach is to proceed with a procedure without adequately assessing the animal’s stress signals or attempting to mitigate them. This might involve ignoring signs of fear like vocalization, struggling, or attempts to escape. Such an approach neglects the ethical obligation to provide humane care and can lead to a breakdown in the handler-animal relationship, making future interactions more difficult and dangerous. It also risks compromising the accuracy of diagnostic information or the effectiveness of treatment due to the animal’s compromised state. A third incorrect approach is to rely solely on chemical restraint without considering less invasive methods or the potential side effects of sedatives or anesthetics. While chemical restraint has its place, it should not be the default for all situations. Over-reliance can mask underlying issues, delay diagnosis, and introduce risks associated with drug administration. Ethically, it is important to use the least stressful and least invasive methods necessary to achieve the desired outcome. Regulatory frameworks often require justification for the use of chemical agents and emphasize the importance of monitoring the animal’s response. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a systematic decision-making process when approaching animal handling. This begins with a comprehensive assessment of the animal, considering species, age, health status, and known temperament. Next, the RVT must evaluate the specific procedure and identify potential risks. Based on this assessment, the RVT should select the most appropriate and humane restraint technique, prioritizing methods that minimize stress and ensure safety. Continuous monitoring of the animal’s response throughout the procedure is essential, with the willingness to adapt the handling strategy if the animal shows signs of distress or if the initial approach proves ineffective or unsafe. Collaboration with the veterinarian is also key, especially when complex restraint or chemical sedation may be required.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent conflict between a client’s wishes and the veterinarian’s professional judgment regarding the welfare of an animal. The RVT is caught between their duty to the client and their ethical obligation to advocate for the animal’s health and well-being, particularly when the client’s proposed action may be detrimental. Careful judgment is required to navigate this situation ethically and legally. The best professional approach involves clearly and compassionately communicating the anatomical and physiological reasons why the proposed procedure is contraindicated and potentially harmful, while also offering alternative, medically sound solutions. This approach prioritizes the animal’s welfare by providing accurate information and advocating for appropriate care. It aligns with the ethical principles of veterinary medicine, which emphasize beneficence (acting in the animal’s best interest) and non-maleficence (avoiding harm). Furthermore, it upholds the professional responsibility to educate clients and guide them towards decisions that promote animal health. An incorrect approach would be to proceed with the client’s request without thoroughly explaining the risks and offering alternatives. This fails to uphold the duty of care to the animal, potentially leading to harm, and neglects the professional obligation to provide informed consent and guidance. It could also expose the veterinary practice to liability. Another incorrect approach would be to dismiss the client’s concerns or wishes outright without attempting to understand their perspective or provide a reasoned explanation. This can damage the client-veterinarian relationship, erode trust, and may lead the client to seek less scrupulous advice or care elsewhere, ultimately compromising the animal’s welfare. A further incorrect approach would be to defer the decision entirely to the veterinarian without engaging in a collaborative discussion with the client about the anatomical realities and potential consequences. While the veterinarian holds ultimate medical authority, the RVT plays a crucial role in client communication and education, and a collaborative approach fosters better client compliance and understanding. Professionals should approach such situations by first actively listening to the client’s request and understanding their underlying motivations. Then, they should leverage their knowledge of comparative anatomy and physiology to explain, in clear and understandable terms, why the request is problematic and what the potential negative outcomes are. This explanation should be coupled with a presentation of medically sound alternatives that address the client’s underlying concerns while prioritizing the animal’s health. Maintaining a compassionate and respectful demeanor throughout the interaction is paramount.

When evaluating a registered veterinary technologist’s (RVT) role in clinical biochemistry, particularly concerning enzyme assays, electrolyte panels, and metabolic profiles, ethical dilemmas can arise when client financial constraints impact diagnostic capabilities. This scenario is professionally challenging because the RVT must balance the desire to provide the best possible patient care with the client’s financial limitations, while also adhering to professional standards and ethical obligations. The RVT’s actions can directly affect patient outcomes and the client’s trust in the veterinary practice. The best professional approach involves transparent communication with the veterinarian and the client regarding diagnostic limitations and potential compromises. This means the RVT, after identifying a potential need for comprehensive metabolic profiling or specific enzyme assays, should proactively discuss these findings and their implications with the supervising veterinarian. The veterinarian, in turn, should then engage in a detailed conversation with the client, explaining the diagnostic value of the proposed tests, the potential information they could yield about the patient’s health, and the financial implications. This discussion should include exploring alternative, potentially less comprehensive but still informative, diagnostic pathways or phased testing strategies that align with the client’s budget, always prioritizing the patient’s well-being within these constraints. This approach upholds the RVT’s duty to assist in diagnosis, the veterinarian’s ultimate responsibility for patient care and client communication, and the ethical imperative of informed consent and responsible resource allocation. An incorrect approach would be for the RVT to unilaterally decide to omit certain tests from a metabolic profile or forgo specific enzyme assays due to perceived client financial limitations without consulting the veterinarian. This bypasses the veterinarian’s diagnostic authority and the client’s right to be fully informed about all available diagnostic options and their rationale. It can lead to incomplete diagnoses, delayed treatment, and potentially poorer patient outcomes, violating the principle of providing competent care. Another ethically unsound approach is for the RVT to proceed with a full, potentially expensive, diagnostic workup without a thorough discussion with the veterinarian and client about financial concerns. While aiming for comprehensive care, this disregards the client’s financial reality and can lead to significant unexpected costs, eroding trust and potentially causing financial hardship for the client. This fails to respect the client’s autonomy and financial well-being. Finally, an RVT suggesting to the client that certain tests are “optional” or “less important” without the veterinarian’s direct involvement and clear explanation of the diagnostic significance is also unprofessional. This undermines the veterinarian’s role and can lead to the client making decisions based on incomplete or misleading information, potentially compromising the patient’s health. The professional reasoning process in such situations should involve a tiered approach: first, identify the diagnostic need based on clinical signs and initial assessments; second, consult with the supervising veterinarian to discuss the diagnostic plan and its implications; third, support the veterinarian in communicating with the client about the rationale, benefits, and costs of proposed diagnostics, including exploring alternative options; and fourth, execute the agreed-upon diagnostic plan with precision and care, always prioritizing patient welfare within the established parameters.

The analysis reveals a scenario where a Registered Veterinary Technologist (RVT) is faced with a situation that tests their professional judgment and adherence to ethical guidelines regarding sample integrity and client communication. The challenge lies in balancing the need for accurate diagnostic results with the client’s emotional state and potential misunderstanding of veterinary procedures. Careful judgment is required to ensure that the collection of biological samples is performed correctly, ethically, and in a manner that maintains client trust and the veterinarian’s professional standing. The approach that represents best professional practice involves clearly and calmly explaining the necessity of the urine sample to the client, emphasizing its diagnostic importance, and offering to collect it in a way that minimizes their discomfort, such as using a sterile collection container provided by the clinic for a mid-stream sample if the animal is amenable, or offering to collect it via cystocentesis if necessary and appropriate for the diagnostic goal. This approach is correct because it prioritizes accurate sample collection, which is fundamental to providing effective veterinary care and is a core responsibility of an RVT. It also demonstrates respect for the client’s concerns by offering a collaborative solution that addresses their apprehension while upholding professional standards. This aligns with the ethical principles of beneficence (acting in the best interest of the animal) and non-maleficence (avoiding harm, which includes providing inaccurate diagnoses due to poor sample quality). Furthermore, it upholds the professional duty to educate clients about necessary procedures. An incorrect approach involves proceeding with the sample collection without adequate client communication or consent, especially when the client has expressed reservations. This failure to communicate and obtain informed consent can lead to a breakdown in the client-veterinarian relationship, potential accusations of impropriety, and ultimately, compromised trust. It disregards the client’s autonomy and can create an adversarial situation. Another incorrect approach involves abandoning the diagnostic goal due to the client’s discomfort without exploring alternative, ethically sound methods for sample collection. While client comfort is important, the primary responsibility is to the animal’s health. Failing to obtain a necessary sample, when ethically achievable, could lead to a delayed or incorrect diagnosis, thus failing the principle of beneficence. A third incorrect approach involves making assumptions about the client’s understanding or willingness to cooperate without attempting to engage in a dialogue. This can lead to misunderstandings and a perception of dismissiveness, further eroding trust and potentially hindering the diagnostic process. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with understanding the diagnostic necessity of the sample. This should be followed by clear, empathetic communication with the client, explaining the ‘why’ behind the procedure and addressing their concerns. Offering options for collection that are both diagnostically sound and considerate of the client’s feelings is crucial. If a direct, non-invasive method is not feasible or sufficient, then more invasive but medically indicated procedures should be explained with their rationale, and consent obtained. Documentation of the communication and consent process is also vital.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the RVT to balance the immediate need for diagnostic information with the ethical and regulatory obligations concerning sample integrity and client communication. Misinterpreting or mishandling cytology samples can lead to misdiagnosis, delayed treatment, and potentially compromised patient welfare, all of which carry significant ethical and professional repercussions. The RVT must exercise sound judgment in selecting the most appropriate staining technique based on the sample’s characteristics and the diagnostic goals, while also ensuring proper documentation and communication. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves selecting a staining technique that is most appropriate for the specific type of cellular material present and the diagnostic question being asked, followed by meticulous documentation of the procedure and findings. For fine needle aspirates (FNAs) of solid masses, Diff-Quik (or similar rapid stain) is often the initial choice for quick assessment of cellularity, inflammation, and malignancy, allowing for immediate feedback to the veterinarian. However, for samples suspected of containing specific microorganisms or requiring detailed nuclear morphology, a more specialized stain like Gram stain or Papanicolaou stain might be indicated. The RVT must be proficient in recognizing when such specialized stains are necessary and possess the knowledge to perform them correctly. Accurate and detailed record-keeping, including the stain used, any observed abnormalities, and the date/time of collection and staining, is a fundamental ethical and regulatory requirement for patient care and continuity. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Choosing a staining technique solely based on speed without considering the diagnostic yield for the specific sample type is professionally unacceptable. For instance, using only a rapid stain on a sample where delicate nuclear detail is crucial for differentiating benign from malignant cells could lead to an incomplete or inaccurate assessment, violating the ethical duty to provide competent care. Failing to document the specific staining technique used, the date, time, and any preliminary observations is a significant regulatory and ethical failure. This omission hinders accurate record-keeping, impedes communication among the veterinary team, and can compromise the legal defensibility of the diagnostic process. It also prevents proper quality control and review of the cytology work. Selecting a staining technique that is known to be suboptimal for the cellular characteristics of the sample, such as using a stain that causes excessive artifact or obscures key morphological features, demonstrates a lack of professional competence. This can lead to misinterpretation and inappropriate treatment decisions, directly impacting patient welfare and violating the RVT’s responsibility to provide accurate diagnostic support. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should approach cytology sample preparation and staining with a diagnostic mindset. This involves understanding the limitations and strengths of different staining techniques in relation to the expected cellular components and the clinical question. A systematic approach should include: 1) assessing the sample type and quality; 2) considering the most likely differential diagnoses; 3) selecting the most appropriate staining method to highlight relevant cellular features; 4) executing the staining procedure with precision; and 5) meticulously documenting all steps and findings. When in doubt, consulting with the veterinarian or a veterinary cytologist is a crucial step in ensuring optimal patient care and upholding professional standards.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge for a Registered Veterinary Technologist (RVT) due to the inherent complexity of metabolic disorders and the critical need for accurate client communication regarding a pet’s physiological status. The RVT must balance providing essential information about the animal’s condition with avoiding the unauthorized practice of veterinary medicine, which is a significant ethical and legal boundary. Misinformation or overstepping professional scope can lead to client confusion, inappropriate treatment decisions by the owner, and potential harm to the animal, as well as disciplinary action against the RVT. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves the RVT clearly and accurately communicating the observed physiological data and the veterinarian’s diagnostic findings to the client. This includes explaining the implications of the metabolic processes involved in the animal’s condition, such as impaired glucose regulation or electrolyte imbalances, in a way that the client can understand. The RVT should then defer any treatment recommendations or prognostication to the veterinarian. This approach is correct because it adheres to the RVT’s scope of practice, which includes assisting in diagnosis and treatment under veterinary supervision, and providing client education based on veterinary direction. It upholds ethical obligations to the animal and the client by ensuring accurate information is conveyed and that medical decisions remain with the licensed veterinarian. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Providing a definitive diagnosis or recommending specific dietary changes without direct veterinary instruction constitutes the unauthorized practice of veterinary medicine. This is a regulatory failure and an ethical breach, as RVTs are not licensed to diagnose or prescribe. Offering a prognosis or suggesting the animal is “likely to recover” or “unlikely to recover” also falls outside the RVT’s scope and can create false expectations or undue distress for the client, potentially leading to poor decision-making. Suggesting the client seek a second opinion from another veterinarian without the primary veterinarian’s knowledge or consent, while seemingly helpful, bypasses the established veterinarian-client-patient relationship and can undermine trust and coordinated care. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes clear communication within their defined scope of practice. This involves understanding the boundaries of their role, actively listening to client concerns, and relaying information accurately and empathetically. When faced with complex physiological situations, the RVT should focus on presenting objective data and the veterinarian’s interpretations, rather than offering personal opinions or directives. If unsure about the appropriate level of communication or information to share, consulting with the supervising veterinarian is always the most prudent step.