Questions to ask when choosing a veterinary PIMS
Bottom line
Instinct Science is using a March 25 blog post to shape how veterinary teams think about choosing a practice information management system, or PIMS, arguing that practices should focus less on feature lists and more on whether workflows actually connect from scheduling through charting, billing, inventory, and client communication. In “5 Red Flags When Evaluating Veterinary PIMS (& What to Look For Instead),” authors Leonie Carter, DVM, and Taylor Worsham outline five warning signs: disconnected workflows, slow or unstructured charting, missed charges being treated as routine, weak integrations, and vague support, security, or data-access terms. The piece is clearly vendor-authored, but it lands as more practices reassess software fit amid growing pressure for cloud access, integrations, and cleaner clinical workflows. (instinct.vet)
Why it matters: For veterinary professionals, the article is a useful reminder that PIMS selection is now an operational and clinical decision, not just an IT purchase. AAHA recently highlighted many of the same evaluation criteria, including ease of use, customization, integrations, mobile accessibility, customer support, and pricing. That overlap suggests a broader industry shift: practices are being pushed to ask harder questions about workflow design, training burden, audit trails, data portability, and revenue leakage before signing a contract. Missed charges remain a meaningful concern in the field, with industry sources commonly estimating 5% to 10% of revenue can slip through when billing depends on memory or disconnected systems. (aaha.org)
What to watch: Expect more vendor content, side-by-side comparisons, and practice-level due diligence in 2026 as hospitals weigh whether older billing-centered systems can keep up with integrated, cloud-based clinical workflows. (aaha.org)
Choosing a veterinary PIMS is getting framed less as a software shopping exercise and more as a practice strategy decision. That’s the message in Instinct Science’s March 25 post, “5 Red Flags When Evaluating Veterinary PIMS (& What to Look For Instead),” which argues that veterinary teams should judge systems by how well they support real-world workflows, not by how long the feature list looks. The article identifies five red flags: disconnected workflows, inefficient charting, routine missed charges, fragile integrations, and unclear support, security, or data-access policies. (instinct.vet)
The timing matters. Veterinary practices are operating in an environment where software increasingly sits at the center of patient records, billing, diagnostics, inventory, and client communication. In a December 16, 2025, Trends article, AAHA board member Gregory Carastro, LVT, made a similar case, saying practices should evaluate ease of use, customization, integrations, mobile accessibility, customer support, and pricing when choosing practice management software. AAHA’s piece also underscored that no single platform fits every hospital, especially as needs diverge across small, mixed, specialty, and multi-site groups. (aaha.org)
Instinct’s blog post is explicitly commercial, and much of the back half positions Instinct EMR as the answer to the problems it raises. Still, the specific questions it recommends are practical. The post urges practices to map workflows from appointment scheduling through discharge and payment reconciliation, then look for manual handoffs, duplicate entry, and end-of-shift cleanup. It also tells buyers to scrutinize whether integrations are truly two-way, whether APIs are documented, whether sandbox testing exists, and whether vendors clearly spell out uptime, escalation paths, backups, audit logs, and data export rights. Those are the kinds of operational details that often get less attention than dashboards or front-end features during a demo. (instinct.vet)
One of the strongest points in the article is its focus on missed charges. Instinct cites industry estimates that hospitals may miss 5% to 10% of charges annually when care documentation and billing are disconnected. That figure is consistent with broader trade coverage. Today’s Veterinary Business has reported that missed charges in veterinary practice are commonly estimated at 5% to 10% of actual revenue, linking the problem to lapses in workflow, documentation, and billing follow-through. In a softer visit environment, that kind of leakage may feel more consequential than it did a few years ago. Vetsource data reported by Today’s Veterinary Business showed veterinary visits fell year over year in 2024, and more recent coverage pointed to continued visit pressure in 2025. (instinct.vet)
Expert reaction specific to Instinct’s post was limited, but the broader industry conversation points in the same direction. AAHA’s recent guidance emphasizes usability and integration, while VHMA’s member review platform reflects how heavily peer experience now factors into software decisions, especially around onboarding, responsiveness, and workflow fit. That’s notable because PIMS dissatisfaction often shows up less as a single catastrophic failure and more as chronic friction: extra clicks, slow charting, unreliable syncs, after-hours cleanup, and training fatigue. (aaha.org)
Why it matters: For veterinary professionals, the takeaway isn’t that one vendor has solved the category. It’s that the selection process itself needs to mature. Practices evaluating PIMS platforms may want to move beyond “does it have this feature?” to “what happens during a normal Tuesday?” That means asking to see a full patient journey in demos, confirming how diagnostics become charges, testing how quickly records can be searched, clarifying who owns and can export the data, and understanding what support looks like during an outage or go-live weekend. The more a system depends on memory, workarounds, or staff heroics, the more likely it is to affect revenue integrity, team morale, and continuity of care. (instinct.vet)
What to watch: As 2026 unfolds, expect more scrutiny of interoperability, implementation support, and workflow automation, especially as practices add AI scribes, digital forms, inventory tools, and analytics platforms that need dependable PIMS connections. The next phase of competition may hinge less on headline features and more on whether vendors can prove reliability, transparency, and a smoother day-to-day experience for clinicians, technicians, managers, and pet parents alike. (instinct.vet)