ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2026
Understanding error culture in veterinary medicine: a survey among veterinarians across German-speaking countries.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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 ( Discussion: Overall, although errors are common, the organizational conditions required for systematic identification, communication, and learning are lacking in many settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.