Veterinary work carries risks the literature has documented for years: moral distress, euthanasia exposure, client hostility, debt, and long hours in small teams where there is nowhere to be off-duty. The veterinary edition asks about those, because a generic workplace evaluation will not.
A six-person clinic cannot be reported on the way a six-thousand-person employer can. Minimum-response suppression is applied to every cohort figure, and it is the reason a practice can run this at all. Without it, everyone would know who said what.
Organisations that have run the evaluation (sometimes called a veterinary wellbeing survey) include Vet Alliance Canada, the Florida Veterinary Medical Association, Veterinary United, Chewy, Morrisville Cat Hospital and Just Cats.
Benchmarks are per edition, so a veterinary practice is compared with other veterinary practices. Being told you are below a cross-industry average is not information; being told where you sit among peers carrying the same pressures is.
Euthanasia decisions and cost-limited care, measured in their own section.
How people are treated at work, benchmarked against other practices.
High-functioning burnout in a clinic that never really closes.
Study debt and pay pressure, and how much of it your team carries.
Moral distress, euthanasia exposure, client hostility and after-hours load are specific to the profession. A generic workplace evaluation does not ask about them.
Yes. Every cohort figure is suppressed below a minimum number of responses, which is what makes it safe to run in a small practice.
Benchmarks are per edition, so you are compared with other veterinary practices.
Yes. The veterinary edition carries the psychosocial hazards module, reported through four standards.