Client-perpetrated aggression in veterinary practice: prevalence, psychological impact, and institutional response.
Kogan LR, Rishniw M · American Journal of Veterinary Research · 23 June 2026
Client aggression is near-universal in veterinary practice, causing significant psychological harm and driving clinician attrition.
This cross-sectional survey study distributed through the Veterinary Information Network investigated the prevalence, psychological consequences, and institutional responses to client-perpetrated aggression among veterinarians. Nearly all respondents (98.9%) reported lifetime exposure to client verbal abuse, while 38.2% had been physically threatened, 4.1% physically harmed, and 11.8% experienced client stalking behaviors. The most commonly reported psychological symptoms included intrusive thoughts, sleep disturbances, hypervigilance, and anxiety. The professional impact was substantial, with over one-third of respondents (34.5%) having considered leaving veterinary medicine due to verbal abuse alone. Female veterinarians were disproportionately affected, reporting higher frequency of verbal abuse and greater likelihood of physical threats. A notable practice-type disparity emerged: private practice veterinarians reported better access to formal aggression policies, reporting systems, client dismissal protocols, and leadership support compared to those in corporate settings. The authors attribute this gap to governance structures in corporate practices that may constrain local leadership's capacity to protect staff. The findings reveal significant deficiencies in workplace infrastructure, de-escalation training, and mental health resources across the profession. The authors recommend profession-wide policy development, integration of de-escalation training into veterinary school curricula, and structural reform within corporate veterinary organizations to better safeguard clinician wellbeing and reduce occupational attrition driven by workplace aggression.
This summary was distilled by AI and may occasionally misinterpret data. Confirm critical details with the primary literature before clinical application.