Unless you know what to ask for, you won't get it. You'll get a curated, polished, summarised and redacted version of what they want you to know (or believe) versus what you actually need
to know.
Below is an explanation of what constitutes a "primary clinical record" vs a "clinical summary'" . . . and why it's essential for accountability.
But before you potentially get lost in the weeds of veterinary terminology (which I hope I've simplified for you), there's another equally critical reason:
"Clinical Summaries'"can easily be altered, added to, or deleted from, after the fact . . . which is precisely what very much appears to have happened to my dog, Harry's, "notes" regarding his final and fatal visit to Massey's Companion Animal "Hospital".
When they're in support of a clinician's desired narrative or to position defensively against subsequent complaints by the pet's owner, they're quite often very obvious . . . as is the case with key additions that appear to have been made following my distribution of two Media Releases (which I supplied to Massey) detailing the
horror story that was Harry's overnight "care" at the facility.
Primary Records vs Clinical Summaries
A
Clinical Summary is a processed, subjective narrative written after the fact.
It's a clinician’s interpretation of events, often exported from software as a story to be presented to a client.
Because it's written retrospectively, it's subject to "narrative smoothing", where discrepancies or errors can be omitted or minimised.
Primary Records, on the other hand, are the raw, contemporaneous data points captured at the bedside at the exact moment care is provided.
To perform a forensic audit of veterinary care, the following primary documents are mandatory:
- Medication Administration Records (MAR): These are the only records that prove a drug was actually given. While a summary might list what was prescribed, the MAR contains the timestamped logs showing the exact dose, the time it entered the patient’s system, and the initials of the staff member who administered it. This is the only way to verify if a drug like Gabapentin was administered correctly . . . or in error (whether recklessly or intentionally) as it was in my dog,
Harry's case.
- Nursing Observation & ICU Flow Sheets: In an ICU setting, vitals (heart rate, respiratory rate, temperature) and "mental status" are recorded hourly. These flow sheets provide a real-time map of a patient’s decline or stability. A summary might claim a patient was "stable", but the raw flow sheets reveal the minute-by-minute reality of their physiological state.
- Raw Laboratory Data: Transcribed tables in a summary can contain typos or omissions. Primary records include the original, machine-generated printouts from diagnostic equipment. These print-outs have their own internal timestamps and metadata that cannot be altered by hospital staff.
- Contemporaneous Progress Notes: These are the unedited, raw notes made by clinical staff during a shift. They capture the immediate concerns and observations of the people at the bedside, before those thoughts are polished into a final "summary".
- The Full Audit Trail: In a digital environment, the audit trail is the "record of the records".
It includes:
- View Logs: Proof of who accessed the file and when.
- Field-Level Deltas: The "before and after" values for every modification. If a record was changed, the audit trail shows the original value and the new value.
- System Timestamps: These verify whether a note was written at the time of care or added days later to justify an outcome.
Why Raw Data is Essential
The imbalance of power in veterinary medicine relies on the pet owner’s lack of access to this raw data.
By providing a "Summary" instead of "Primary Records", an institution maintains control over the narrative.
Only the raw, timestamped, and unedited data allows for an objective, forensic verification of the truth.
Without these documents, there is no transparency, and therefore, no possibility of true accountability.
Massey Continues On In Full Arrogant Denial . . . As I Continue to Investigate the Multiple Malpractices & Unravel the Full Extent of the Cover-Up
From :
editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Sent :
Thursday, 29 January 2026 5:22 pm
To :
'Frances Mullan' <F.Mullan@massey.ac.nz>; 'Privacy' <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Cc :
'Iain McLachlan' <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'Liam Shields' <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'Seton Butler' <seton@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'enquiries@privacy.org.nz' <enquiries@privacy.org.nz>
Subject : RE: Harry Kelly – FINAL NOTICE regarding Non-Compliant Disclosure & Demand for Primary Clinical Records
Ms Mullan:
I have been formally advised that Massey University has failed to act in accordance with my specific request for Harry’s personal information.
The "Clinical Summary" provided is a subjective narrative produced after the fact. It is not a clinical record. Under the
Privacy Act 2020, I am entitled to the raw, contemporaneous, and complete data held by the hospital.
I require the immediate disclosure of the following
Primary Records:
- Medication Administration Records (MAR): The original, timestamped logs showing the exact dose, time, and administrator for all medications, specifically the Gabapentin and any other sedatives.
- Nursing Observation & ICU Flow Sheets: The hourly raw data charts recording vital signs (HR, RR, Temp) and "mental status" notes.
- Raw Laboratory Data: The original machine-generated result printouts for all bloodwork and diagnostics, not the transcribed summaries.
- Contemporaneous Progress Notes: The original, unedited notes made by clinical staff at the bedside during Harry’s admission.
- Audit Trails: The digital metadata for the clinical file showing when entries were made, by whom, and if any retrospective edits were performed.
To be absolutely clear, and for the avoidance of this request again being passed off with a high-level summary rather than the provision of the actual data I am requesting: I require the granular digital metadata for the clinical file, including
View Logs (who accessed the file and when),
Field-Level Deltas (the "before and after" values for every modification), and
precise system timestamps to verify the contemporaneity of all entries and edits.
To tell you what you already know, Ms Mullan: A "Summary" (i.e. your provided “Clinical Summary”, is a subjective curation of facts (or claimed facts); I am demanding the
facts themselves.
As you and your veterinary school personnel and your legal team would well know,
the 101-page “Clinical Summary” and the “Change logs” you provided to date are secondary, processed narratives and metadata. They are
not
the primary clinical records.
My request specifically encompasses the missing
Medication Administration Records (MAR), the
original ICU Flow Sheets containing hourly vital sign data, and the
raw, machine-generated laboratory printouts.
The absence of these primary documents means Massey University remains in breach of its disclosure obligations.
Which is also something you are all well aware of, but obviously had hoped that I would
not become aware of.
I wish to express my further disgust at the Massey institution for yet again attempting to take advantage of a pet parent’s lack of specific clinical and related administrative knowledge for the obvious purposes of obscuration.
One would have thought the fact that this imbalance in the clinic/institution vs per owner relationship – having already resulted in the fraudulent diagnosis and coerced, otherwise unnecessary “euthanasia” of my dog as a cover-up for your multiple instances of malpractice – would have been enough lying and dishonesty to be recorded against you by one pet owner.
Seemingly not. My intelligence has not appreciated being insulted yet again.
Please confirm by the Close of Business tomorrow that these raw records (in their entirety) are being prepared for urgent release,
in order to avoid the need for me to file a second formal complaint with the Privacy Commissioner.
Sincerely
Jordan Kelly
