Client-perpetrated aggression is endemic across the veterinary workforce: Experiences across clinical, administrative, and leadership roles

Abstract Background : Client-perpetrated aggression is increasingly recognized as an occupational health concern in veterinary medicine. Recent studies have documented its prevalence among veterinarians; however, less is known about its impact on other members of the veterinary team despite their frequent exposure to emotionally charged client interactions. Objectives : This study examined the prevalence of client-perpetrated verbal abuse, stalking, physical threats, and physical harm; their psychological and professional consequences; and organizational responses across veterinary technicians and assistants, customer service representatives (CSRs), veterinarians, and managers, as well as across practice settings and ownership structures. Methods : A cross-sectional online survey was completed by 647 veterinary professionals recruited through professional organizations and social media. Comparisons were conducted across role groups, practice settings, and ownership structures. Associations between respondent characteristics and aggression-related outcomes were evaluated using chi-square tests, Cramér’s V , ordinal logistic regression, and binary logistic regression. Results : Nearly all respondents (99.8%) reported lifetime exposure to client verbal abuse. Despite role differences in exposure frequency, psychological consequences were consistent across groups, including high rates of fatigue (82.5%), self-reported general anxiety (76.0%), cynicism about pet owners (91.9%), and consideration of leaving the profession (57.0%). CSRs reported the highest monthly verbal abuse rate (44.4%), yet the lowest institutional support across multiple measures. Emergency settings carried the highest physical threat rates (61.4%). Private practices were nearly twice as likely to routinely dismiss aggressive clients as corporate practices (31.6% vs 16.3%). Fewer than half of respondents reported clear aggression policies (42.2%) or formal reporting systems (45.8%), and 42.6% had received no de-escalation training despite 73.3% wanting more. Conclusions and implications : Client-perpetrated aggression appears to be endemic across the veterinary workforce and is associated with substantial psychological and professional consequences across role groups. The findings highlight persistent gaps in workplace infrastructure, leadership responsiveness, and staff support, particularly among frontline personnel. From a One Welfare perspective, protecting the well-being of veterinary professionals is essential to sustaining the workforce and maintaining high-quality animal care. Profession-wide efforts should prioritize standardized aggression policies, de-escalation training, effective reporting systems, empowered client dismissal practices, and leadership accountability for responding to aggression incidents.