Amos had spinal surgery at Pride Veterinary Referrals on 11 June 2026. Four months, one formal complaint, one subject access request and many emails later.
I still don't know who operated on my dog.
Here is everything the record says about it, in the order it was written.
28 May: the initial consultation
At the consultation, with my partner present, I asked who would be doing the surgery. The resident said the head of the neurology service would. He described how he would "let him operate on my own spine".
The resident's note of that consultation records a different question of mine and its answer:
Owners asked if the surgery would be with 3D guides. Explained it will be free-hand as [the head of service] puts emphasis in training neurosurgeons on free-hand surgery before diving into 3D guides. O understood and happy with this.
Read that again. The technique was chosen because it is how the department trains neurosurgeons.
31 May: the procedure request form
Completed three days after the consultation. The two lines at the top:
Clinician(s): [the resident] Supervisor: [a second specialist] / [the head of service]
Further down: "Clinician to be present for induction: No." "Approximate duration: "3-4h 11/6/26."
Two names in the supervisor box. Neither is the person the record later calls the surgeon.
10 June: the consent form
Presented on a tablet in reception by an intern at drop-off, with no clinician available to ask anything. Procedure details: "blood tests + CT scan + surgery + hospitalization". No operation named, no implant named, no surgeon named. The declaration I signed says I had the opportunity to ask questions.
11 June, 16:58: the bill
The operation ran for eight hours and twenty minutes, by the hospital's own note. The post-operative radiographs are timed from 20:22. So at 16:58 Amos had been on the table for about five hours.
At 16:58 one entry was made on his account: the arterial line, the epidural, the fluids, the antibiotic, the induction, and "Neurology - Spinal Stabilisation - Complex (excl Drill Guides) (Limited Package)".
All under one name. A surgeon I had never heard of, never met, and have never spoken to.
Nothing was itemised after 17:08.
11 June, 21:41: the resident's note
L7S1 Dorsal laminectomy, removal of the fibrotic tissue causeing spinal cord tethering and stabilisation L7S1S2. Primary surgeon: [specialist]. Assistant: [the resident]/[the head of service].
That is the only sentence in the entire record that assigns the role. It was written by the resident, at 21:41, in a note headed "SURGERY REPORT AND OWNER UPDATE" which also records "No significant complications."
2 July, 10:01: the surgery report
Written under her name three weeks after the operation. The timing is worth the record's own lines.
- At 02:29 that morning I rang the emergency line: Amos was "constantly crying, slightly more lame on LH and not wanting to go to the toilet".
- At 09:27 reception logged "O called chasing the above".
- At 10:01 the surgery report for 11 June was entered.
- At 10:28 the resident rang me with the explanation that Amos had tried to jump on the sofa.
The operative report exists because I chased, and it was written in the twenty-seven minutes before the call that explained his deterioration as a contusion.
It is in the passive voice throughout: "Laminectomy L7-S1 with neuroburr", "Stabilisation followed with BETA System 3.5", "Laminectomy window covered with lyostip and routine closure". It never says who did any of it. It ends:
Comments on surgery: overall happy with releasing fibrotic tissue and tethered cord and firm construct stabilisation. Long surgery 4 h for removal of fibrotic tissue and average 3 h for stabilisation.
Read the second number again. "Average 3 h for stabilisation." An operative report records what happened to the patient on the table. This one records what the procedure usually takes. Three weeks after the operation, the surgeon gives an average, not the time it took on Amos.
Four hours plus an average is not a duration, and it doesn't reach the resident's eight hours twenty either way.
24 July: the resident's email
Amos's case has been continuously reviewed by me as the resident, my supervisor for the case, the Head of the Neurology Service, two specialists in diagnostic imaging, and a specialist in anaesthesia.
27 July: my complaint
The supervisor was the surgeon. I have not met or spoken with her. The supplied history contains two entries under her name: a consumables line on the day of surgery and the operative report time-stamped 2 July. If her continuous review is documented elsewhere, please identify it.
18 August: the practice's answer
The level of detail written in [her] report is something the Neurology team decided to do as an aide for any future searches for research purposes, as you can see it is a very technical report and was never intended to be something that would help a client. The 11th of June was [her] last day at Pride for two weeks due to leave. She completed the written surgery report soon after her return. [She] is the supervisor of [the resident] and was in theatre with [the resident] and [the head of service] during the procedure. [The resident] continued the overall management of care for Amos under the supervision of [the head of service] in [her] absence.
Count what that paragraph answers.
- Her leave: yes.
- When she wrote the report: yes.
- Her job title: yes.
- Who was in the room: yes, all three.
- Who operated: no.
"Was in theatre with" is presence, not a role. The practice answered a formal complaint about the surgery without saying who performed it.
It also says what the surgery report was for. Not me. "Future searches for research purposes."
| Source | Who operates |
|---|---|
| 28 May, in person | The head of service. |
| 31 May, request form | Clinician: the resident. Supervisors: two others. |
| 10 Jun, consent form | Nobody. "blood tests + CT scan + surgery + hospitalization" |
| 11 Jun 16:58, the bill | The named surgeon |
| 11 Jun 21:41, the resident | "Primary surgeon: [The named surgeon]. Assistant: [resident]/[head of service]" |
| 2 Jul, her report | Nobody. Passive voice. |
| 24 Jul, the resident | "me as the resident, my supervisor for the case, the Head of the Neurology Service" |
| 18 Aug, the practice | "was in theatre with" |
Four documents, four different answers, and the two written by the hospital after I asked the question directly don't answer it.
Since July I have asked Pride, and then IVC Evidensia, for the records of Amos’s operation. It is 20 October. I still don’t have them.
I still don't know who operated on my dog.