Why more clinics may stop letting pet parents hold dogs: full analysis

A new qualitative study is adding nuance to a familiar exam-room flashpoint: the pet parent who wants to hold the dog during the visit. In Frontiers in Veterinary Science, researchers reported that veterinarians’ handling decisions during routine dog exams are shaped by a mix of patient behavior, clinic resources, client factors, safety concerns, and clinician well-being. At the same time, a new dvm360 “Veterinary Vexations” article frames client restraint as a liability risk and urges clinics to rely on trained staff, proper equipment, and clear policies instead. (frontiersin.org)

The study helps explain why this issue persists even as low-stress and fear-reducing handling approaches have gained broad support. Researchers interviewed 17 veterinarians practicing in Canada and the United States to understand how they make handling decisions during routine dog physical exams. Participants described using stress-reducing strategies such as quieter rooms, fewer sudden stimuli, treats, acclimation time, and, when needed, pre-visit medications or in-clinic anxiolysis. But they also said those practices are constrained by practical realities, including staffing, time pressure, perceived bite risk, and the need to complete a medically useful exam. (frontiersin.org)

That qualitative work builds on a 2025 cross-sectional survey from the same research stream, which found that minimal restraint is commonly used during routine dog exams, but full-body restraint is still used on calm, fearful, and aggressive dogs. The survey also linked handling choices to factors including prior bite history, staff role, practice type, safety perceptions, and views about owner presence during exams. Together, the two papers suggest that restraint decisions are not simply about philosophy; they’re embedded in clinic culture, staffing, and risk tolerance. (frontiersin.org)

The new interview study also points to a less-discussed variable: veterinarian well-being. Authors noted that participants described burnout and secondary traumatic stress as factors that could make them less patient, more rushed, and less likely to use stress-reducing practices consistently. The paper explicitly connects those findings to a One Welfare framework, arguing that animal welfare, client interactions, and veterinary team well-being are interdependent. That matters because a clinic’s handling approach may be influenced not only by training, but also by the emotional state of the people delivering care. (frontiersin.org)

On the risk-management side, outside guidance is fairly direct. AVMA PLIT’s client-management recommendations tell veterinarians to avoid client assistance, especially when restraining animals, and to maintain detailed records of treatment and exam findings. AAHA’s humane restraint guidance similarly argues that patient-friendly handling can improve safety, efficiency, and the experience for both the veterinary team and clients, while warning against force-based restraint practices that escalate fear and risk. (avmaplit.com)

Why it matters: For veterinary professionals, this is a reminder that restraint policy is clinical policy, workplace safety policy, and client communication policy all at once. If a pet parent is allowed to hold a dog and the dog bites, scratches, or falls, the consequences can extend far beyond the immediate injury. The emerging literature suggests that clinics need systems, not improvisation: pre-visit screening for fear, pain, or prior aggression; staff training in low-stress handling; ready access to muzzles, mats, towels, and other restraint aids; and clear scripts explaining when a pet parent may comfort a patient, but not physically restrain them. (frontiersin.org)

The bigger takeaway may be consistency. The Frontiers authors note that stakeholders, including veterinarians, technicians, clinic managers, professional bodies, and dog owners, should be involved in developing realistic protocols. In practice, that could mean standardizing when exams pause, when sedation is recommended, when the patient goes to treatment, and how the team documents client refusals or safety concerns. Clinics that leave those calls to the moment may be asking individual veterinarians and technicians to absorb too much risk, especially on busy days. That last point is an inference drawn from the study’s findings on staffing, burnout, and safety pressures, rather than a direct recommendation from the authors. (frontiersin.org)

What to watch: The next step is likely not regulation, but protocol refinement inside practices: more written no-client-restraint policies, more pre-visit pharmaceutical use for selected patients, and more emphasis on handling decisions as a measurable quality-and-safety issue rather than a matter of personal style. (frontiersin.org)