Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42357741›Full record

ArticleVeterinary sciences2026

Documentation of Everyday Complaints in Veterinary Practice: Is There a Need for Greater Detail?

Gabriel CuevasRamos

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in Veterinary sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Gabriel CuevasRamosLarge Animal Teaching Hospital, Copenhagen University, Agrovej 8, 2630 Taastrup, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-8851-8389

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Everyday complaints (EDCs) in veterinary practice are frequently under-measured signals of quality and client experience. A practical framework to quantify and use these complaints is presented. It highlights that most published veterinary data describe formal legal or disciplinary cases, while routine concerns about fees, communication, outcomes, and service are rarely captured systematically and lack benchmarks linked to the workload of each practice. Drawing on veterinary mediation reports and human healthcare complaint taxonomies, the paper identifies key obstacles: unclear definitions, under-capture of informal complaints, absence of denominators, and failure to distinguish severity levels. To address this, the manuscript defines EDCs as any owner-initiated dissatisfaction requiring staff time (excluding legal/insurance cases) and outlines a form to log each episode with standardized fields such as category, channel, service area, severity, and resolution. It suggests veterinary clinics build internal baselines over at least 12 months, use run or control charts to detect meaningful shifts and treat both unexpectedly high and near-zero complaint rates as prompts for closer review, so veterinary hospitals can turn everyday complaints into structured inputs for quality improvement rather than purely reputational threats.

Indexed as

everyday complaintsquality controlveterinary practice

Identifiers

PMID42357741
PMCPMC13308325

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.