Veterinary surveys show AI gains, but staffing strain persists

Veterinary practices are moving into a new phase of digital adoption, with AI now showing up in day-to-day workflows across general practice, specialty, emergency, and urgent care. Two newly released 2026 surveys from Instinct Science found that 91% of general practices adopted or changed at least one technology in the past year, while 48% are already using AI in some form. At the same time, specialty and emergency hospitals reported that staffing shortages remain their biggest operational challenge, even as technology starts to deliver measurable efficiency gains. (globenewswire.com)

The findings point to a profession that's trying to modernize under pressure. Instinct's inaugural general practice report, based on a survey of 763 veterinary professionals, found that digital diagnostics, client communication tools, and AI-assisted documentation are increasingly common. Flexible scheduling is also becoming standard rather than optional: only 10% of practices still use a traditional fixed schedule, 40% offer part-time roles, and 25% have moved to a four-day work week. Separate industry data suggests the AI learning curve is still real. An AAHA-Digitail survey of nearly 4,000 veterinary professionals found 83% were familiar with AI tools and 39% were already using them, but 70% cited reliability concerns and 43% said they lacked proper training. (globenewswire.com)

On the emergency and specialty side, the picture is more strained. Instinct said 85% of respondents identified staffing shortages as the industry's top challenge, up from 78% a year earlier. Even though 55% of practices hired more full-time team members in 2025, 32% still said they were working more hours, suggesting hiring hasn't kept pace with caseload and operational demands. Client financial limitations also emerged as a major pressure point, cited by 79% of respondents. (globenewswire.com)

Technology appears to be helping, but unevenly. In general practice, Instinct found that nearly three-quarters of AI users said the tools made them more efficient, with the most common uses in medical records, SOAP note creation, and diagnostic assistance. In specialty and emergency settings, 67% reported improved efficiency after adopting new tools, 57% said patient care improved, more than half said technology reduced treatment or diagnostic errors, and 25% said it helped capture additional revenue. Digital treatment sheets had the biggest reported efficiency impact, followed by cloud-based practice management systems and AI scribes. Other veterinary AI commentary points in the same direction: vendors and clinicians expect the next wave of gains to come less from dramatic replacement of clinical work and more from incremental improvements in charting, continuity of care, specialty workflows, and client communication, with veterinarians still making the clinical decisions. (globenewswire.com)

That trend lines up with broader industry data, though not every practice is moving at the same speed. AVMA's 2025 economic report found that 76.5% of represented practices had practice management software in place in 2024, 59.9% used client communications software integrated with PIMS, and 29.2% used telehealth. The same report found most practice owners viewed the pace of digital transformation as about right, with a smaller group saying it was too slow. Taken together, that suggests AI adoption is building on an already expanding digital base rather than replacing legacy workflows overnight. The market is also still growing: Grand View Research valued the global veterinary software market at $1.44 billion in 2024 and projected it would reach $3.01 billion by 2030, reflecting how quickly AI-enabled scheduling, records, billing, inventory, and communication tools are being folded into routine software purchases. (ebusiness.avma.org)

There are also early signals that governance will matter as much as adoption. In a March 2025 white paper, the American Association of Veterinary State Boards said licensees must understand AI's risks and limitations, maintain transparency around its use, protect client data privacy, and obtain informed consent when appropriate. The document also notes there are currently no federal premarket approval requirements for veterinary AI software in North America, placing responsibility for appropriate use squarely on the veterinarian and facility. That fits with a broader pattern outside veterinary medicine: a 2025 IBM survey of more than 2,300 organizations found one in four companies now has a Chief AI Officer, while healthcare systems and other industries are standing up AI governance committees and strategy roles. For clinics, the practical version may be less a C-suite title than a designated AI coordinator or champion responsible for evaluating tools, training staff, updating prompts and templates, and deciding which new features are actually worth adopting. (aavsb.org)

Technology is also beginning to shape the physical and service design of care delivery. In hospital design, mobile devices, AI transcription, online check-ins, VoIP systems, and mobile payment tools are helping practices shrink the traditional front desk, move more administrative work off the lobby floor, and redesign exam rooms around eye contact and client interaction instead of fixed workstations. And in telehealth, adoption remains uneven but interest is strong. In Australia, VetChat reported that only 13% of pet owners had tried veterinary telehealth, yet 81% said they would consider using it in the future; one in six said they skipped needed veterinary care in the past year because of cost. Veterinarians working in telehealth also reported mental health and scheduling benefits, though prescribing limits remain a barrier. Those patterns reinforce the same theme seen in the Instinct data: digital tools are increasingly tied not just to efficiency, but to access, flexibility, and workforce sustainability.

Why it matters: For veterinary teams, the headline isn't simply that AI is arriving. It's that practices are using technology to buy back time in an environment still defined by labor constraints, rising client expectations, and affordability concerns. That could make AI scribes, cloud systems, and workflow tools attractive not just as efficiency products, but as retention tools for teams stretched by documentation burden and schedule instability. It could also push more clinics to assign someone clear ownership over AI implementation, since familiarity and adoption are rising faster than training and governance. Still, the surveys make clear that software won't fix understaffing by itself, and any productivity gains will need to be balanced against compliance, oversight, and trust. Gallup survey data released in 2025 also underscored the broader access-to-care strain in the market, reinforcing that operational decisions now sit alongside affordability pressures for pet parents. (globenewswire.com)

What to watch: The next phase will likely center on implementation quality, not just adoption rates. Watch for more practices to formalize AI policies, define where human review is required, and weigh whether flexible scheduling and digital tools actually improve retention over the next 12 months. It's also worth watching whether industry groups and state boards move from high-level guidance to more specific expectations for recordkeeping, consent, and the clinical use of AI-generated outputs. Beyond that, expect more experimentation with dedicated AI leads, redesigned hospital workflows, and telehealth models that try to extend access without weakening clinical oversight. (aavsb.org)