Swedish complaint study highlights communication risk in vet care
Bottom line
Version 1 — Brief
A new thematic analysis of 500 complaints handled by Sweden’s Veterinary Disciplinary Board (VDB) found that most cases filed between 2021 and 2023 did not result in sanctions, even though complaints often raised concerns about clinical care, professionalism, and communication. The study, published in BMC Veterinary Research, found that 87% of cases ended without disciplinary action, while 13% led to sanctions ranging from admonitions to one licence revocation. The authors said complaints were commonly driven not just by perceived medical errors, but also by non-medical factors such as inadequate information, lack of empathy, and communication breakdowns. Sweden’s VDB oversees disciplinary matters for animal health professionals and can also rule on licence revocations and prescription-right restrictions. (link.springer.com)
Why it matters: For veterinary professionals, the paper reinforces a familiar but important point: complaint risk doesn’t hinge only on medicine. The authors concluded that many complaints reflected pet parents’ perceptions of communication, respect, and involvement in decision-making, not just technical care. They also noted that medical records carry major weight when accounts conflict, and that incomplete documentation can itself become part of the problem. That lines up with a related Swedish study on euthanasia complaints, which likewise found communication barriers as a major underlying issue even though very few cases led to discipline. (link.springer.com)
What to watch: Expect more attention on communication training, documentation standards, and how complaint data can be used as an early signal of friction before cases escalate to formal discipline. (link.springer.com)
Key facts
- Study type
- Thematic analysis of complaints filed with Sweden’s Veterinary Disciplinary Board
- Sample size
- 500 cases
- Study period
- 2021 to 2023
- Main finding
- 87% of cases ended without disciplinary action
- Sanctions
- 48 admonitions, seven warnings, three probations, and one revoked licence
- Complaint themes
- Clinical errors and quality of care, professionalism and ethics, and communication and information
- Common drivers
- Inadequate information, lack of empathy, and communication breakdowns
- Board role
- Can rule on disciplinary matters, licence revocations, and prescription-right restrictions
Version 2 — Full analysis
A newly published analysis of complaints filed with Sweden’s Veterinary Disciplinary Board offers a detailed look at what drives formal complaints, and what usually happens after they’re filed. Reviewing 500 disciplinary cases processed in 2021, 2022, and 2023, the researchers found that most complaints did not lead to sanctions. Still, the cases reveal a broader pattern: pet parents’ dissatisfaction often centers on communication, professionalism, and expectations around care, not only on alleged clinical mistakes. (link.springer.com)
That matters because formal disciplinary data are often some of the only complaint datasets available in veterinary medicine, even though they capture only the most escalated disputes. A separate 2025 paper in Veterinary Sciences argued that everyday complaints in practice, such as concerns about fees, service, outcomes, and communication, are under-measured and may be more useful as routine quality signals than disciplinary cases alone. In other words, by the time a concern reaches a board, the underlying relationship has usually already broken down. (link.springer.com)
In the Swedish analysis, 87% of the 500 cases resulted in no disciplinary action, and 21% were fully dismissed. Among the 13% that did lead to sanctions, the outcomes included 48 admonitions, seven warnings, three probations, and one revoked licence. The study identified three overarching reasons for complaints: clinical errors and quality of care, professionalism and ethics, and communication and information. Veterinarians accounted for most of the reported animal health staff, and some complaints involved multiple professionals or repeat complainants. (link.springer.com)
The paper also adds useful operational detail for clinics. In 66 non-sanctioned cases, the board or the Swedish Board of Agriculture still commented that handling had been suboptimal, including issues such as poor communication or incomplete workups, even when those shortcomings didn’t justify formal discipline. The authors emphasized that records are especially important in “word against word” disputes, because incomplete or absent documentation can limit the board’s ability to assess what happened and may itself count as an error. They also found that some cases were dismissed simply because they fell outside the board’s jurisdiction, suggesting that pet parents may not always understand where different complaints belong. (link.springer.com)
The broader Swedish literature points in the same direction. A 2024 Frontiers study focused specifically on euthanasia-related complaints to the same board found that communication problems were a significant cause of many complaints, including cases where pet parents said the process had not been explained clearly or did not match their expectations. Only 2 of 47 euthanasia-related complaints from 2018 to 2022 resulted in admonitions, but the emotional intensity of those cases made communication failures especially consequential. (frontiersin.org)
There’s also evidence that the disciplinary process itself affects the profession. A recent survey of Swedish veterinarians examined opinions and attitudes toward the Veterinary Disciplinary Board, reflecting ongoing concern about how complaints shape clinical behavior and stress levels. The new thematic analysis echoes that point, noting that while the process is important for public trust and animal welfare oversight, being reported can be highly stressful for clinicians even when no sanction follows. (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
Why it matters: For veterinary teams, this study is less a story about punishment rates than about where risk accumulates. The findings suggest that complaint prevention lives at the intersection of clinical quality, documentation, empathy, informed consent, and expectation-setting. That’s especially relevant in emotionally charged settings like surgery, anesthesia, and euthanasia, where a complication or poor outcome may be interpreted very differently depending on how well the team prepared the pet parent for what could happen. The takeaway isn’t just “communicate better,” but to build systems that support communication under pressure: clearer discharge instructions, better consent workflows, stronger records, and post-event follow-up when outcomes are poor. (link.springer.com)
What to watch: The next question is whether veterinary regulators, educators, and employers start treating complaint data, including lower-level everyday complaints, as a quality and workforce signal rather than only a legal endpoint. Future research from Sweden may dig further into who files complaints, why some concerns escalate, and whether earlier service recovery could reduce both formal cases and clinician stress. (link.springer.com)