| Complaint: | Complaint 20-79 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Megan Helgeson |
| Premises: | VetMed |
The complainant begins by stating that her dog died during a procedure supervised by Helgeson. She goes on to state that the assistant performing the procedure was not required to be licensed or certified and that VetMed's unnamed lawyer basically ignored many of their questions. It appears that Helgeson recommended that her dog have a nasogastric feeding tube inserted. The complainant says she agreed and that an hour later Helgeson called to say her dog had an "event." The "event" appears to have involved the staff member inserting the feeding tube through the dog's trachea and puncturing a lung. The complainant learned Helgeson wasn't even in the room when the "event" happened, but the assistant called her in when the dog's gums turned blue. The complaint continues with a variety of concerns regarding oversights made by Helgeson and others at VetMed. It also includes a letter from the family lawyer to VetMed.
Helgeson's response tells us that the dog was being treated for suspected acute-on-chronic pancreatitis at the time. Helgeson said that the dog's prognosis was guarded to poor (likely because on top of the pancreatitis the dog had some other health problems). The dog wasn't eating and had lost a significant amount of weight so Helgeson says she recommended a feeding tube. Once the complainant approved the feeding tube, the tube was inserted by Rebecca Kelley, a veterinary technician. It appears Kelley may have had problems and called in Janet Bailey, one of the internal medicine veterinarians at VetMed. Bailey allegedly went to get Helgeson at which point they noted on the radiograph screen that the tube was in the wrong place. The dog had respiratory distress as the tube was removed. She says that various resuscitation efforts were attempted to no avail (it truly sounds as though this dog went through hell). She says that she spoke with Kelley and was told the dog didn't show any distress during the tube placement. She also says that from now on someone would always be around to supervise these things at VetMed.
The Investigative Committee concluded that Helgeson was ultimately responsible as she was the veterinarian overseeing care. The Board disagreed, stating that "while placing an NG tube, it is not uncommon for the NG to enter into the trachea" and that it was a "rare complication" that did not constitute a violation.
We reached out and spoke with one of the complainants in this case to learn more. According to that interviewee, the dog did not even originally present for a feeding tube. Rather, the dog was sent there only to have proper 24-hour supportive care for his condition, but feeding tubes had not been suggested. VetMed appears to have suggested the feeding tube despite that not being part of the original plan on referral.
A veterinary technician was allegedly left unsupervised to perform the procedure. It also appears that radiographic equipment had been positioned to assist in placing the tube, yet for some reason nobody at VetMed ever used it to actually place the tube. The interviewee also related that while the veterinary board was correct that this issue occasionally occurs during placement of esophageal tubes, it is not necessarily fatal. Rather, if the proper equipment and skilled staff had been brought immediately brought to bear on the problem, it is likely the tube could have been removed and reinserted rather than leading to the dog's death. If true, it brings into question the board's reasoning in dismissing the complaint.
| Source: | August 8, 2020 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Megan Helgeson | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Aye |
| Jarrod Butler | Aye |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Steve Seiler | Aye |
| Violations: | |
| ARS 32-2232 (11) Gross negligence; treatment of a patient or practice of veterinary medicine resulting in injury, unnecessary suffering or death that was caused by carelessness, negligence or the disregard of established principles or practices for the incorrect placement of the NG tube, which was directly related to the dog's death. | |
| ARS 32-2232 (22) Medical incompetence in the practice of veterinary medicine for directing the veterinary assistant to place the NG tube; the veterinary assistant incompetently inserted the NG tube. | |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | September 9, 2020 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Megan Helgeson | Respondent |
| Proposed By: | J Greg Byrne |
| Seconded By: | Jessica Creager |
| Roll Call: | |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Aye |
| Sarah Heinrich | Absent |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | September 9, 2020 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Megan Helgeson | Respondent |
| Proposed By: | J Greg Byrne |
| Seconded By: | Jessica Creager |
| Roll Call: | |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Aye |
| Sarah Heinrich | Absent |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | October 10, 2020 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Megan Helgeson | Respondent |
| Proposed By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| Seconded By: | Sarah Heinrich |
| Roll Call: | |
| Darren Wright | Nay |
| J Greg Byrne | Absent |
| Jane Soloman | Nay |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Aye |
| Sarah Heinrich | Absent |
| Result: | Passed |
The primary source for the above summary was obtained as a public record from the Arizona State Veterinary Medical Examining Board. You are welcome to review the original records and board meeting minutes by clicking the relevant links. While we endeavor to provide an accurate summary of the complaint, response, investigative reports and board actions, we encourage you to review the primary sources and come to your own conclusions. In some cases we have also been able to reach out to individuals with knowledge of specific complaints, and where possible that information will be included here.