Survey explores how debriefings enhance psychological safety and reduce burnout in veterinarians.
Objective To assess veterinarians’ experiences with debriefings after adverse medical events and explore the relationship between positive debriefing experiences and psychological safety, job fulfillment, burnout, and work engagement. Methods An online survey was distributed to veterinarian members of the Veterinary Information Network (approx 43,000) from March to April 2025. The survey assessed demographics, adverse medical event experiences, debriefing practices, team psychological safety (Edmondson scale), job fulfillment and burnout (Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index), and work engagement (Utrecht Work Engagement Scale). Multiple regression analyses evaluated associations between debriefing quality and workplace well-being measures. Results Of 186 respondents, 86.6% reported involvement in at least 1 adverse medical event in the previous 12 months, with 59.7% experiencing events causing serious patient harm. Only 49.5% reported debriefings occurring often/always after serious events and 26.8% after minor events, and 13.4% held regular morbidity and mortality rounds. Quality of debriefing experiences was associated with team psychological safety ( R 2 = 0.38), job fulfillment ( R 2 = 0.35), reduced burnout ( R 2 = 0.31), and all work engagement dimensions (vigor, R 2 = 0.30; dedication, R 2 = 0.22; and absorption, R 2 = 0.15), independent of debriefing frequency. Conclusions Well-executed debriefings that include key components for productive discussion are positively associated with psychological safety, job fulfillment, and work engagement while reducing burnout among veterinarians. Clinical Relevance Given the prevalence of adverse medical events in veterinary practice and their potential negative impact on professionals, implementing structured debriefings with trained facilitators could significantly improve both patient outcomes and veterinary team well-being.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kogan et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: