ArticleBMC veterinary research2026
Complaints filed with the Veterinary Disciplinary Board in Sweden - a thematic analysis.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study examined complaints submitted to the Veterinary Disciplinary Board for Animal Health Staff in Sweden to identify reporting reasons, case outcomes, and recurring themes. A quantitative compilation and qualitative thematic analysis were conducted on 500 disciplinary cases processed 2021, 2022 and 2023 (n = 86, n = 227, n = 187).
resultsOf 500 cases, 87% did not lead to sanctions, of which 21% (n = 106) were fully dismissed. The sanctions were admonitions (n = 48; less severe), warnings (n = 7; more severe), probations (n = 3) and revoked licence (n = 1). Veterinarians accounted for the majority of reported animal health staff (522/608). Thematic analysis identified three overarching reasons for reporting: clinical errors and quality of care (such as perceived mistakes in diagnostics, treatment, or examination), professionalism and ethics (including e.g. perceived lack of empathy towards owners or animals), and communication and information (including e.g. perceived loss of autonomy). These themes illustrate that while clinical competence is central, non-medical aspects play a critical role in owners' perceptions of care. A limitation of thematic analysis is its subjectivity; different researchers may identify different themes in the same data due to interpretative differences.
conclusionIn conclusion, prominent sub-themes were linked to non-medical issues, underscoring the need for effective communication and professionalism to prevent conflicts and build trust between veterinary staff and animal owners.
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.