Why more clinics may rethink pet parent restraint during dog exams: full analysis

A new qualitative study is adding evidence to a familiar exam-room tension: when a pet parent wants to hold their dog during an appointment, the safest answer may still be no. The study, published March 20, 2026, in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, draws on interviews with 17 veterinarians in the U.S. and Canada and finds that dog-handling decisions during routine exams are shaped by competing pressures around patient welfare, staff safety, workflow, client expectations, and clinician wellbeing. Its conclusions closely reinforce a recent dvm360 “Veterinary Vexations” article focused on the liability and injury risks that can arise when clients handle animals during care. (public-pages-files-2025.frontiersin.org)

The backdrop is a profession that has been steadily moving toward low-stress, fear-reducing handling, while still confronting the realities of unpredictable patient behavior. AAHA has long advised using the least stressful, most humane handling methods possible, noting that forceful manual restraint can increase injury risk for both staff and patients. The 2015 AAHA canine and feline behavior management guidelines also support pre-visit pharmaceuticals and, when appropriate, chemical restraint to reduce fear and improve safety during care. (aaha.org)

What the new study adds is a more granular look at how veterinarians actually make those decisions in practice. Participants described beginning with minimal or standing restraint, then changing course when fear, pain, or aggression emerged. Depending on the dog and the situation, that could mean pausing the exam, using a muzzle or towel wrap, rescheduling with pre-visit medication, administering in-clinic sedation, or bringing in technicians or other trained staff to help, sometimes away from the pet parent in a treatment area. The authors said these choices were influenced not just by the dog’s behavior, but also by staffing levels, available resources, perceived urgency, diagnostic needs, and the veterinarian’s own stress or compassion fatigue. (frontiersin.org)

That context matters because the legal and operational concerns are not hypothetical. dvm360’s risk-management coverage has argued that courts often view the veterinarian as the responsible expert in the exam room, even when a client insists on helping restrain their animal. In one dvm360 liability article, legal and practice advisors warned that allowing clients to restrain pets can expose practices to negligence or malpractice claims if someone is injured. Another dvm360 legal column said practices that do rely on client restraint should at minimum train staff to direct clients clearly and should be especially cautious with any animal that has previously bitten or attempted to bite. (dvm360.com)

Industry guidance broadly supports that caution. AVMA says veterinarians have a professional and ethical obligation to help reduce dog-bite risk and to educate clients about prevention. AAHA’s humane restraint guidance similarly frames patient-friendly handling as not only a welfare issue, but also a safety and workflow issue for the veterinary team. Taken together, those recommendations suggest that clinics should not treat pet parent restraint as a convenience decision, but as a clinical and risk-management decision. (avma.org)

Why it matters: For veterinary teams, the practical takeaway is that consistency may be as important as technique. A clinic that screens for behavior concerns before the visit, sets expectations with pet parents in advance, equips staff with low-stress handling tools, and has clear thresholds for muzzling, additional staff support, or sedation is likely to be better positioned than one making ad hoc decisions in the room. The new study also highlights a less discussed factor: veterinarian wellbeing. When clinicians are stressed, understaffed, or working within tight workflow constraints, handling decisions can become harder to standardize, which may affect both safety and patient experience. (frontiersin.org)

There’s also a client-communication angle. Some evidence suggests dogs may be less stressed when their pet parent is present, but presence is not the same as physical restraint. That distinction may become more important as practices try to preserve trust and reduce fear without transferring handling risk to clients. For many hospitals, the middle ground may be allowing the pet parent to stay involved as a calming presence while reserving actual restraint and procedure support for trained team members. (fearfreepets.com)

What to watch: The next step is likely not a new regulation, but more formal clinic protocols. Expect growing attention to written policies on pet parent participation, staff training in low-stress handling, pre-visit pharmaceuticals, and documentation of behavior and restraint decisions, especially as practices weigh patient welfare, workplace safety, and liability in the same exam room. (aaha.org)