Artificial intelligence has moved quickly from an experiment to a routine tool in many veterinary workplaces, according to a new North American survey. The same report also suggests that formal oversight, staff training, and workflow planning have not kept pace with adoption.
Veterinary Practice News reported the findings on October 1, 2026. The figures come from a survey initiated by veterinary software company Digitail and administered by the American Animal Hospital Association. The survey collected 1,730 self-reported responses from veterinary professionals in the United States and Canada between July 27 and August 12, 2026.
What the survey found
Among respondents, 83.7% reported using AI in veterinary practice, compared with 39.2% in a related 2024 survey. Of those who said they use AI, 88.3% reported using it daily or weekly.
The most common applications were administrative and communication tasks rather than autonomous medical decision-making. Clinical documentation—including tools that help prepare SOAP notes or act as digital scribes—was the leading use. Client communication, outreach, reminders, and other operational tasks were also prominent, while AI-assisted interpretation of diagnostic images, laboratory work, and cytology was less common.
The survey also found a gap between installing AI tools and managing them deliberately. According to the report, 65.2% of practices had added AI without substantially redesigning their workflows. Close to half of respondents said their practice had no AI plan or designated person responsible for it, and nearly one-third reported having none of the governance supports measured by the survey.
Accuracy and privacy remain central concerns
Reliability and accuracy were the most frequently reported concern, selected by 67.4% of respondents. Data security and privacy followed at 59%, while 47.1% cited insufficient training or knowledge.
Those concerns matter because veterinary records can contain medical histories, medication details, diagnostic findings, and owners’ personal information. A tool that drafts a note or message may save time, but its output still needs professional review. The survey did not show that AI-generated records are uniformly accurate, that all tools handle data in the same way, or that using AI improves an individual animal’s clinical outcome.
Reported business gains are not proof of causation
The report grouped practices by an AI “maturity” score covering strategy, governance, vendor selection, workflow integration, adoption depth, and organizational readiness. Respondents from the most mature group reported roughly six times as many positive business outcomes as those in the least mature group.
That association is worth watching, but it should not be interpreted as proof that AI caused the difference. The outcomes were reported by survey participants rather than independently audited, and practices that plan technology carefully may differ in other ways from practices using it informally. The survey was also not designed to compare diagnostic accuracy, treatment results, complication rates, or long-term patient health.
Why this matters to dog owners
For pet owners, the practical question is not simply whether a clinic uses AI. It is how the clinic uses it and who remains accountable for the final record and medical decision.
If a veterinary team uses an AI scribe or drafting tool, owners can reasonably ask whether a veterinarian reviews the final note, how corrections are handled, and whether the system stores audio or other identifiable information. If written discharge instructions do not match the conversation in the exam room, contact the clinic rather than relying on the document alone.
AI-generated summaries should not replace a physical examination, individualized diagnosis, or direct discussion with the treating veterinarian. This is especially important when a dog has a changing gait, pain, weakness, or possible neurologic signs. Owners can help by bringing concise observations and short home videos; WUMIBOX’s guide to recording dog mobility changes for a veterinary visit explains what to capture.
Technology may support access without replacing responsibility
The survey’s strongest signal is that veterinary AI is currently concentrated in documentation and practice operations. Used carefully, those tools may reduce repetitive work or help teams organize information. However, the report does not establish that AI can replace clinical judgment or that more technology automatically produces better care.
Digital tools can also change how general practices coordinate with specialists. That broader shift is explored in our report on veterinary teleconsultation and specialist access for dogs. In both cases, the technology is a support layer: responsibility for interpreting the case and communicating the plan remains with qualified veterinary professionals.
What remains unverified
The 2026 survey provides a snapshot of participating professionals, not a census of every veterinary practice in the United States and Canada. Its adoption percentages should therefore be read as survey findings rather than an exact measure of the entire profession.
It also does not independently verify the reported financial or workflow benefits, compare specific vendors, or establish clinical safety across different AI systems. Future research will need to examine error rates, privacy safeguards, effects on record quality, and measurable patient outcomes—not just adoption and perceived benefits.
For now, the clearest conclusion is that AI use in veterinary practice is expanding rapidly, while accuracy review, privacy protection, staff training, and accountable governance remain unfinished work.