Client-perpetrated aggression in veterinary practice: prevalence, psychological impact, and institutional response

Objective: To characterize the nature, frequency, and psychological and behavioral consequences of client-perpetrated aggression among veterinarians and to examine associated workplace policies and training. Methods: A cross-sectional, anonymous online survey was distributed through the Veterinary Information Network. Respondents reported lifetime exposure to client verbal abuse, physical threats, physical harm, and stalking behaviors as well as associated psychological symptoms, professional impacts, behavioral adaptations, and workplace factors. Ordinal and binary logistic regression examined predictors of aggression. χ2 tests compared private and corporate practices on policy, training, and leadership response variables. Results: Nearly all respondents (98.9%) reported lifetime exposure to client verbal abuse. More than one-third (38.2%) had been physically threatened, 4.1% had been physically harmed, and 11.8% reported client stalking. The most prevalent symptoms across aggression types were intrusive thoughts, sleep disturbances, hypervigilance, and anxiety. Over one-third of respondents (34.5%) had considered leaving veterinary medicine as a result of verbal abuse. Female veterinarians reported a higher frequency of verbal abuse and greater likelihood of physical threat. Private practice veterinarians were more likely than those in corporate settings to report formal aggression policies, reporting systems, client dismissal practices, and leadership support. Conclusions: Client-perpetrated aggression is a near-universal occupational experience among veterinarians, with substantial and often persistent psychological consequences. Significant gaps exist in workplace infrastructure, training, and mental health support. Clinical Relevance: The findings support the need for profession-wide policy development, de-escalation training beginning in veterinary school, and attention to governance structures in corporate practice that may limit local leadership's ability to protect staff.