The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic increased caseload and stress in veterinary surgeons, but positive changes to working environments did occur.

Pandemic-driven workflow changes increased surgeon stress, but positive adaptations like curbside care should be permanently retained.

This cross-sectional survey study examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on veterinary surgeons' working conditions, job satisfaction, and employer responses during 2020–2021. A 40-question anonymized internet survey was distributed from November 2021 through February 2022, yielding 333 respondents including board-certified surgeons and residents. The majority worked in private clinical practice (65.9%), with the remainder primarily in academia (30.3%). Results demonstrated that 77% of respondents experienced significant schedule disruptions, with private practice surgeons and staff surgeons (versus owners) disproportionately affected. Stressful working environments were reported by 76% of those with altered schedules, while 78% reported increased caseloads. Despite these challenges, 76% felt their employers were supportive, though only 62% believed their personal safety was adequately prioritized. Overall job satisfaction declined from pre-pandemic levels; however, 60% of respondents identified at least one positive workplace change attributable to pandemic protocols, most notably curbside care implementation and adoption of remote meetings. Statistical associations were drawn between demographic variables and survey responses, highlighting differential impacts based on practice type and employment position. The authors recommend that positive workflow adaptations identified during the pandemic—particularly those improving efficiency and flexibility—should be retained to help mitigate ongoing workplace stress and burnout risks in veterinary surgery. This study underscores the need for proactive management strategies to support surgeon well-being amid sustained high caseload demands.

This summary was distilled by AI and may occasionally misinterpret data. Confirm critical details with the primary literature before clinical application.