FCA authorised · FRN 724952 0117 325 0027Quote & buy →
Aipedia: Veterinary surgeons and practices
Vets may use AI to suggest differentials and treatment options, but the RCVS says only clinically relevant information belongs in the record and the decision stays with the vet. A missed diagnosis is judged against a competent vet, not against what the tool suggested.
Part of: AI in veterinary practice
In short
AI assistants can take a history, signalment and findings and return a list of possible diagnoses, tests and treatments. The RCVS Spring 2026 advice says clinical decision making must not be wholly delegated to AI, output must be critically appraised, and where AI aids a differential diagnosis the record should hold the clinically relevant information rather than the generated list. The RCVS names bias, hallucination and overreliance as risks. A missed diagnosis claim usually turns on whether the vet's reasoning was reasonable, so the record should show that reasoning in the vet's own words.
Vets use general generative AI chatbots and veterinary-specific assistants to brainstorm differentials for unusual presentations, check rare conditions in less familiar species, suggest diagnostic plans and summarise treatment options. Some practice software suggests differentials from the record automatically.
Used well, this can prompt a vet to consider something they might have missed. Used badly, it can anchor thinking on the first suggestion, or produce confident references and drug details that do not exist.
General chatbots are not built for clinical work. They may mix human and veterinary sources, apply information from one species to another, or present out-of-date guidance with no warning. Veterinary-specific tools may be better grounded, but the RCVS expects the user to understand how a tool was trained and what its limits are before relying on it.
These duties apply whether or not AI is involved:
Illustrative scenario: a vet enters the signs of an older rabbit into a generative AI chatbot, which lists dental disease first. The vet focuses on dental treatment and does not consider a systemic cause that a colleague would have tested for. The rabbit deteriorates and the owner's complaint asks why bloods were not run. The record contains a pasted list of eight differentials, none investigated, which makes it look as though the vet ignored possibilities they had written down.
Bias is a quieter risk. Tools trained mostly on common species or particular populations may rank conditions in ways that do not fit the animal in front of you.
Overreliance is the risk the RCVS links to skills. If newer vets routinely start with a generated list, they may get less practice at building differentials themselves, which matters on the day the tool is wrong or unavailable.
A missed or delayed diagnosis claim usually asks whether the vet's approach was one a responsible body of vets would accept. The tool's output is not the standard. A record showing what the vet considered, what was ruled out and why is the core of a defence. Pasting an unfiltered list can undermine it, which is one reason the RCVS advises against it.
PI arranged under Code 3.4 usually responds to the negligence allegation regardless of whether AI was consulted, subject to the wording. See does PI cover AI mistakes for the general position.
You can reduce the risk with these steps:
Related: AI scribes and records, AI dose calculators and the AI in veterinary practice hub.
Apex arranges PI for vets and practices. A broker reviews your cover and how the policy deals with diagnosis claims where AI suggestions were part of the workup.
Yes, as a prompt for your own thinking. The RCVS expects critical appraisal and enough subject knowledge to judge the output. Avoid entering identifiable client information into public tools, and verify any clinical detail before acting on it.
The RCVS says record the clinically relevant information, not the generated list. Some vets may also note briefly that a tool was consulted, but the important part is your reasoning: what you considered, tested and ruled out.
Not on its own. A negligence claim is judged against a competent vet, and the RCVS says decisions must not be wholly delegated to AI. Following a wrong suggestion without appraisal is unlikely to be a defence.
They may be better grounded in veterinary sources, but the RCVS duties are the same. Check the scope, how the tool was trained, where data go and whether the developer can access them, using the RCVS adoption checklist, before relying on any tool.
Tell us about your firm and the work you do. A broker will review how your current PI treats AI-assisted work, or arrange new cover. No fee for a quote. Or call 0117 325 0027.
Start a PI quote Request a callbackApex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered in England and Wales, company number 07014570. This page is general information about how AI is used in the profession and how insurance may respond. It is not legal, regulatory or insurance advice on your circumstances, and it does not guarantee that cover will be available or on what terms.
