Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026
Understanding error culture in veterinary medicine: a survey among veterinarians across German-speaking countries.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Montag Corinna M, Kleinsorgen Christin, Rösch-Rodax Dana, Volk Holger A, Busse Claudia
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Errors are assumed to occur frequently in veterinary practice and may affect animal health, client trust, and the well-being of veterinary staff. Their handling is shaped by the prevailing error culture within practices and institutions. While error culture has been investigated in human medicine and extensively in other high-risk fields such as aviation, little is known about how it is perceived within veterinary medicine.
METHODS: This study therefore examined practising veterinarians' perceptions of errors, contributing factors, reporting practices, and institutional responses. An anonymous online questionnaire, adapted from a British pilot study and expanded to 29 items, collected demographic data, experiences with errors, contributing factors, and institutional structures. Three perspectives were captured: self-reported errors, errors reported to supervisors, and errors observed within the team.
RESULTS: A total of 1102 fully completed questionnaires were analysed. More than three-quarters of participants (n = 858, 78%) reported at least one incident in which an animal suffered permanent harm or death, and 68% (n = 745) stated that they had disclosed at least one of their own. Based on the weighted ranking, diagnostic activities were ranked first, followed by medication dosing and surgical procedures among self-reported errors. Supervisors most strongly prioritized interaction with animal owners, followed by billing and the diagnostic activities in relation to error reports received. Similarly, observed errors were most strongly prioritized in relation to interactions with animal owners, followed by diagnostic activities and medication dosing. Across all perspectives, the same central contributing factors were identified: time pressure, a hectic working environment, and lack of experience. Reasons for not reporting errors included the belief that the incident was irrelevant (n = 130, 53%) or the perception that no errors had occurred (n = 46, 19%). More than half of respondents reported no formal error reporting system existed in their workplace (n = 579, 54%); errors were mainly discussed in one-to-one conversations (n = 821, 75%). Only 40 respondents (4%) reported the presence of anonymous reporting systems, whereas 392 respondents (36%) reported dedicated team meetings.
DISCUSSION: Overall, although errors are common, the organizational conditions required for systematic identification, communication, and learning are lacking in many settings.
METHODS: This study therefore examined practising veterinarians' perceptions of errors, contributing factors, reporting practices, and institutional responses. An anonymous online questionnaire, adapted from a British pilot study and expanded to 29 items, collected demographic data, experiences with errors, contributing factors, and institutional structures. Three perspectives were captured: self-reported errors, errors reported to supervisors, and errors observed within the team.
RESULTS: A total of 1102 fully completed questionnaires were analysed. More than three-quarters of participants (n = 858, 78%) reported at least one incident in which an animal suffered permanent harm or death, and 68% (n = 745) stated that they had disclosed at least one of their own. Based on the weighted ranking, diagnostic activities were ranked first, followed by medication dosing and surgical procedures among self-reported errors. Supervisors most strongly prioritized interaction with animal owners, followed by billing and the diagnostic activities in relation to error reports received. Similarly, observed errors were most strongly prioritized in relation to interactions with animal owners, followed by diagnostic activities and medication dosing. Across all perspectives, the same central contributing factors were identified: time pressure, a hectic working environment, and lack of experience. Reasons for not reporting errors included the belief that the incident was irrelevant (n = 130, 53%) or the perception that no errors had occurred (n = 46, 19%). More than half of respondents reported no formal error reporting system existed in their workplace (n = 579, 54%); errors were mainly discussed in one-to-one conversations (n = 821, 75%). Only 40 respondents (4%) reported the presence of anonymous reporting systems, whereas 392 respondents (36%) reported dedicated team meetings.
DISCUSSION: Overall, although errors are common, the organizational conditions required for systematic identification, communication, and learning are lacking in many settings.