Dog & Cat Vets in Poplar

## Summary Poplar Vets is a small‑animal clinic for dogs, cats and other small pets, with in‑house diagnostic facilities mentioned on its website (X‑rays and ultrasound) and a broad menu of services including routine care, surgery and dental work. The website also states emergency vet services are provided and that the practice is a veterinary nurse training facility. Recent reviews paint a mixed picture: some owners describe detailed cost explanations before treatment, quick access to short‑notice appointments when a pet’s condition changes, and proactive follow‑up calls/updates; others allege disorganisation, attempted overcharging for a heart scan (£1,000 quoted vs £600 elsewhere), and serious concerns about clinical judgement/handling of a long‑term lump that was reportedly not tested until much later. ## Services From the clinic website summary: - Preventative healthcare and wellness checks - Routine and advanced surgery - Dental care - Emergency vet services (for urgent care needs, as stated on the website) - Diagnostic testing, with X‑rays and ultrasound listed as facilities - Hospitalisation - End‑of‑life care - Nurse consults - Laser therapy - Pet travel certificates - Microchipping - Nutritional advice - Pet pharmacy - Specialty areas listed: cardiology, dermatology, ophthalmology, orthopaedics, internal medicine, radiology From recent reviews: - Cat neutering (owner reports the process was explained end‑to‑end and the experience was “smoothest”) - Microchipping done quickly without booking ahead (same‑day) - A diagnostic work‑up leading to “clear instructions” (no specific test named) - A “heart scan” is referenced by one reviewer in a pricing complaint (type of scan not specified) ## Pricing - One reviewer alleges Poplar Vets tried to charge **£1,000** for a “normal heart scan,” compared with **£600** at another vet. - Another reviewer says staff “explain in detail any procedures and costs before anything is done,” and reception can be helpful with discounts for registered patients (no amounts given). ## People Named in reviews: - **Romane (vet nurse):** mentioned as “attentive,” and two dogs “clearly adored her,” suggesting good handling during visits. - **Dr Gean (vet):** credited with a “very good diagnostic,” giving the owner peace of mind and “clear instructions to follow.” Team/reception (as described by reviewers): - Multiple reviewers highlight reception staff answering questions patiently and helping with insurance claim explanations. - One owner reports being “constantly updated” and receiving calls to check a pet’s wellbeing, plus being offered options and advice by phone when issues arose. - There are also reports of inconsistency between different vets’ opinions (“different doctors do tell you slightly different things”) and separate complaints alleging poor organisation and unprofessional behaviour. ## Reviews **Google rating: 3.9 stars from 264 reviews.** “Themes below are drawn from the latest written reviews available to us.” - **Communication and follow‑up (positive):** several owners describe detailed explanations of procedures/costs beforehand, frequent updates during ongoing treatment, and follow‑up calls to check on a pet. - **Access/speed (positive):** short‑notice appointments for urgent changes are specifically mentioned; one owner reports microchipping was done quickly without booking ahead. - **Specific procedure experiences (positive):** cat neutering described as smooth, with the process explained step‑by‑step. - **Cost/charging concerns (negative):** one reviewer alleges an attempted overcharge for a heart scan (£1,000 vs £600 elsewhere). - **Organisation and professionalism concerns (negative):** one review describes repeated calls taking hours to confirm no appointment; another alleges the practice refused first aid for an injured pigeon and that police were called. - **Clinical decision concerns (negative):** one detailed account alleges a dog’s lump was repeatedly dismissed as a fatty lump without tests over an extended period, later found to be a mast cell tumour; the reviewer also states the practice admitted “shortcomings” in assessment/follow‑up in communications shared in the review.