The COVID-19 pandemic rapidly increased the use of virtual platforms in veterinary medicine, with lockdowns and health concerns forcing many veterinarians to offer remote services. At the same time, the veterinary profession was already struggling with appointment backlogs and staff shortages in both the U.S. and Canada, making alternative care methods necessary.

While veterinary organizations have supported using virtual care to supplement in-person visits and improve access, not all veterinarians agree with this approach. Research shows a clear division within the profession. Some veterinarians see virtual care as helping solve what’s been called an “animal welfare crisis,” where millions of companion animals don’t receive care due to cost, location, or other barriers. However, many other veterinarians remain highly skeptical, reporting they feel less confident making diagnoses remotely and questioning whether quality care can be delivered virtually. This split opinion demonstrates the need for more research to understand both the potential benefits and challenges of virtual veterinary care.

This study aimed to explore how veterinarians view virtual care delivery, while identifying the obstacles and advantages that adopting remote service models might introduce to veterinary practice.

Companion animal veterinarians from both Canada and the U.S. were recruited via veterinary organizations and social media platforms to participate in the study. Participants completed pre-interview electronic questionnaires and engaged in either online or telephone interviews conducted in English or French between June and August 2022.

Participants’ attitudes toward virtual care were assessed using the Net Promoter Score (NPS), calculated on a scale from zero to 10 indicating their likelihood to recommend telehealth to colleagues. NPS values categorized veterinarians as “detractors” (scores from zero to six), “passive” (scores of seven or eight), or “promoters” (scores of nine or 10).

Thematic trends in the data were identified using patterns that emerged organically, and participants’ NPS values were used to compare perspectives between advocates and skeptics of virtual care.

The analysis included 22 veterinarians equally divided between virtual care promoters (11) and detractors (11). Ten participants were recruited through social media, four through telemedicine organizations, four through veterinary association newsletters, and four through colleague referrals. Most were female (17) and practiced in Canada (17), with graduation years spanning from 1984 to 2021.

Eight major themes were revealed regarding virtual care’s impact on: access to care, medical care quality, client experience, veterinarian-client communication, operational efficiency, integration systems, well-being, and financial aspects. However, this paper focused specifically on the access-to-care theme, as both advocates and skeptics agreed that virtual care can enhance access despite its limitations. Within this theme, four key sub-themes emerged:

1. The inherent limitations of virtual care;
2. The role of virtual care in improving access;
3. The perspective that “virtual care is better than no care;” and
4. The value of virtual care as a supplement to traditional in-person veterinary services.

Limitations To Virtual Care

Veterinarians across both promoter and detractor groups recognized virtual care’s primary limitations: inability to perform physical examinations and dependence on client descriptions.

Though many developed adaptation strategies, concerns persisted regarding diagnostic testing limitations, cross-border restrictions, potential care delays, technology issues, and diminished interpersonal connections. Effective virtual care implementation hinges on practitioner comfort and establishing clear boundaries for appropriate remote consultations.

Virtual Care Plays A Role In Access To Care

Veterinarians across both promoter and detractor groups recognized that virtual care could enhance access to veterinary services, particularly for clients facing geographic or financial barriers.

Most participants cited potential cost advantages and the ability to provide more frequent touchpoints for client education and follow-up care. However, several challenges were identified, including limited public awareness of virtual veterinary options, concerns about technology access, and debate over whether virtual consultation pricing offers meaningful savings compared to in-person visits.

Some participants also noted benefits for clients with mobility limitations or transportation challenges, while emphasizing that virtual care might work best as a complement to established in-person relationships.

“Virtual Care Is Better Than No Care”

Despite most participants viewing face-to-face care as ideal veterinary practice, a strong consensus emerged across both promoter and detractor groups that “virtual care is better than no care.”

This view was particularly relevant for scenarios involving access barriers, financial constraints, overwhelmed clinics, and geographic isolation. While some cautioned against compromising care quality for cost savings, many acknowledged that virtual care provides valuable professional guidance, comfort to animal guardians, and basic intervention where in-person options are unavailable. Several participants noted clients’ gratitude for virtual consultations despite recognizing their limitations.

Virtual Care Supplements In-Person Care

Most participants emphasized that while in-person care remains the gold standard in veterinary practice, virtual care offers valuable supplementary benefits. Both promoters and detractors acknowledged that telemedicine can serve as an effective bridge until in-person care is available, helping animal guardians manage immediate concerns while arranging clinic visits.

Several participants highlighted virtual care’s utility in emergency contexts — guiding guardians to available clinics, helping determine when in-person care is necessary, and identifying critical health markers that indicate emergencies. This triage function was valued by clients who appreciated receiving professional direction and confirmation about their next steps, even when the virtual consultation couldn’t resolve the issue completely.

Implications

The study’s qualitative approach using semi-structured interviews limits the generalizability of the findings to the broader veterinary profession. Despite efforts to enhance validity through diverse geographical sampling and equal inclusion of both virtual care supporters and critics, the results should be viewed as hypothesis-generating for future research rather than definitive conclusions. While data saturation within the participant pool suggests thorough exploration of themes among those interviewed, the findings represent insights from only this specific population of veterinarians.

Still, the study’s findings are likely of interest to advocates working on access-to-care issues in the companion animal space. Most veterinarians viewed virtual care as a valuable tool for improving access to veterinary services by addressing geographic, demographic, financial, and knowledge barriers. However, uncertainty persists regarding the quality of care that can be delivered remotely, suggesting a hybrid model combining virtual and in-person services may be optimal.

For advocates and veterinarians alike, future action items may include:

• Advocating for regulatory clarity around virtual veterinary care to establish consistent standards across jurisdictions.
• Developing educational campaigns to increase public awareness about available virtual veterinary options and when they’re appropriate to use.
• Establishing subsidy programs to support virtual veterinary care for low-income animal guardians in underserved communities.
• Partnering with technology companies to improve platforms and reduce technical barriers for both veterinarians and animal guardians.
• Creating community resources such as shared devices or internet access points to help animal guardians without technology connect with virtual veterinary services.
• Supporting research investigating animal guardians’ perspectives on virtual care to better understand gaps and opportunities.