Heart of Chelsea Veterinary Group - Ballard

Reviews

• HK

  Heike K

  3 days ago
  5.0
  Lovely and very reassuring experience with Heart of Chelsea today. I needed my cat seen on short notice and everyone was so kind, they managed to squeeze me in for a same day drop off and later pickup and even though it was last minute and she was not an existing patient at that point (she definitely is now) nothing felt rushed either on the phone or in person. Great communication, too, in terms of updates and then advice for how to continue treatment at home.
• VG

  Vida Gause

  3 days ago
  5.0
  We just had our first visit, and it was such a great experience! As a new kitty owner, I really appreciated how comfortable they made both me and my cat feel throughout the visit. They even took the time to show me how to clip his nails, which meant so much to me. The clinic was clean, the reception staff was lovely, and everyone was so welcoming. So happy we found them!
• LG

  LiveKind Gem

  Sep 23, 2026
  5.0
  Heart of Chelsea made everything so friendly and easy from booking with Adele to changing appointments with Danny. When we arrived for our appointment, my pup and I were anxious but Tori took amazing care of us and got everything ready for Dr Love. When Dr Love saw Darcy we felt cared for and listened to after a tough week or so. Dr love got down on the same level as Darcy to not scare her, let her do things in her own time and didn’t make it imposing while being so thorough. We look forward to returning and will recommend to everyone! Thank you!
• CS

  Christina Smidt

  Sep 19, 2026
  5.0
  We highly recommend Dr. Love and her practice. We have seen 10 vets over the past 3 years due to turnover churn at a different clinic, vet er visits, and series of specialists that we needed to see for when one of our cats had cancer. Dr. Love hands down has been the best experience for her blend of up to date academic expertise, technical medical skill, and professional interpersonal engagement. We first met Dr. Love as a follow up to one vet's recommended surgery for our cat who started to have urine crystals. Dr. Love recommended a change in diet as a first non-invasive step to try, which completely resolved the issue and prevented the unnecessary surgery. She has since done two surgeries and helped to manage our cat's health ups and downs. We are grateful for Dr. Love's responsiveness and her proactive check-ins to see how our cats were doing after major and minor care visits.
• AS

  Ayumi Saito

  Sep 18, 2026
  2.0
  I am writing this review to share my concerns regarding the medical accuracy, communication, and individualized attention received during our recent visit. I had explained that I was already consulting with a remote veterinarian and was seeking an in-person physical exam, but this did not seem to be taken into consideration. Prior to the appointment, complete medical records were submitted, but they were clearly not reviewed beforehand. During the consultation, the veterinarian had to ask an assistant to search the records for one value from the previous blood tests. Upcoming routine vaccinations were therefore entirely unmentioned. However, an anti-nausea injection was proactively offered despite my clear explanation that my pet was behaving normally and maintaining a good appetite. Altogether, this made me question whether the purpose of the visit and my pet’s current clinical status were actually being taken into consideration. Furthermore, I found some of the communication unprofessional; describing healthy blood-test results as “boring” was disheartening. My primary concern lies in the documented medical report. The report was titled with a specific disease that had never been diagnosed. When questioned, the clinic explained that a “template” had been used. More concerningly, this template claimed that the “vast majority” of cases with this symptom have an underlying disease, citing a specific research paper. Upon reviewing the cited study myself, I found that the study population was highly selected, and including other clinical symptoms, and most importantly the study population additional diagnostic findings and underwent an invasive diagnostic procedure. Although the study included cases presenting with my case alone, the results were not reported separately for that subgroup. The authors themselves explicitly acknowledged that they did not know how often underlying disease was present with the clinical symptoms without the additional diagnostic findings used to select the study population. It is therefore scientifically inappropriate to generalize findings from this selected study population with a specific diagnostic procedure findings to cases based on the symptoms frequency alone. The cited paper does not support this generalization, making the statement scientifically inaccurate rather than simply overstated. Overgeneralizing from insufficiently applicable evidence and then stating that underlying disease was “the most likely reason” for the history felt less like a simple overstatement and more like medical misinformation. However, the vet did not mention anything about that diagnostic procedure and instead mentioned more expensive procedure. In addition, the veterinarian stated that food intolerance does not occur with carbohydrates and occurs only with proteins. This raised further concerns about the accuracy of the medical information being provided. Overall, I was not confident that my pet’s individual case was being adequately considered, particularly given that his medical records did not appear to have been reviewed beforehand. I also came away uncertain about the accuracy of some of the medical information I received. Given the reliance on a template, the questionable application of cited literature, potentially inaccurate medical explanations, and some unprofessional communication, I lost confidence in the medical recommendations and communication of this clinic.