FCA authorised · FRN 724952 0117 325 0027Quote & buy →
Aipedia: Veterinary surgeons and practices
Vets can use AI in practice, but the RCVS says clinical and professional decisions must not be wholly delegated to it and the vet stays responsible. That matters because every AI-assisted error is still judged as the vet's own work, and PI is compulsory under the Code.
Part of: AI in veterinary practice
In short
UK vets and practices use AI for consult notes, imaging reports, lab analysis, differentials, dosing, client communications and farm and equine monitoring. The RCVS published advice in Spring 2026 that applies the existing Code rather than creating new rules: decisions must not be wholly delegated to AI, output must be critically appraised, AI records must be manually verified, client data must be protected and AI tasks delegated only to trained staff. Code 3.4 requires PI or equivalent arrangements for all professional activities. The RCVS has said nothing on AI and insurance, so how a claim is treated depends on the policy wording.
AI has arrived in veterinary work through the tools practices already buy. Common uses include:
Understanding has lagged behind adoption. A 2023 white paper reported by Vet Times found over a third of respondents had little understanding of AI, and 10% claimed comprehensive knowledge.
The RCVS regulates veterinary surgeons under the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 and registered veterinary nurses. Its Code of Professional Conduct and 27 chapters of supporting guidance do not mention AI specifically, so in April 2026 the Standards Committee agreed advice on using AI in practice that applies existing principles. It is advisory, and the Committee wanted to avoid "additional, onerous obligations".
| Document | Date | Status | Key point |
|---|---|---|---|
| RCVS AI advice | Agreed April 2026, published Spring 2026 | Advice applying the Code | Decisions must not be wholly delegated to AI |
| Chapter 13 revision | Approved April 2026 | Supporting guidance | Identify vets and nurses in records; keep records as long as necessary |
| AI Roundtable report | August 2024 | Report, options only | Always a human in the loop |
| Joint education statement | February 2026 | Joint statement | Learners stay responsible for their work |
The Code duties AI touches most are 1.2 (competence and referral), 1.3 (appropriate and adequate care), 2.5 (clear, accurate and detailed records), 2.6 (confidentiality), 3.3 (keeping skills up to date) and 3.4 (PI). Paragraph 17.8 makes leaders responsible for working systems at least as accountable as those following them, which matters when a practice chooses a tool for everyone. The RCVS is not overseen by the PSA, so it is not among the health regulators in the September 2026 joint statement of intent.
The RCVS names three risks: bias, hallucination, and "overreliance or overconfidence" that erodes clinical skills. In practice these turn into familiar claims and complaints:
None of these are new types of error. What changes is how quickly an unchecked output can spread across many cases before anyone notices.
Code 3.4 says vets "must ensure that all their professional activities are covered by professional indemnity insurance or equivalent arrangements". Chapter 17 adds that the duty sits with each individual (17.17), that practice cover may not extend to a locum (17.18), and that equivalent arrangements need sufficient, readily available funds, an established claims procedure and independent claims handling (17.19). The RCVS sets no minimum limit and no run-off requirement.
The AI advice does not mention insurance. A negligence claim arising from AI-assisted work is usually treated like any other claim about the vet's care, since the vet chose the tool and remains responsible for the decision, but this depends on the wording. Some policies may contain technology or data exclusions, and a fault in the tool itself is usually a matter for the supplier contract. See veterinary PI and the RCVS requirement, what veterinary practice PI costs and AI exclusions in policies.
A practice can start with these steps:
Each guide covers one task or issue in more depth.
Apex arranges PI for veterinary surgeons, practices and new graduates. A broker reviews your cover, including how AI-assisted clinical work, locums and practice systems are treated; see the veterinary PI guide and PI for new veterinary professionals.
Yes. The RCVS advice treats AI as a tool that vets and vet nurses can choose to use, provided professional and clinical decisions are not wholly delegated to it, the output is critically appraised, and existing duties on records, confidentiality and delegation are met.
No. The Spring 2026 advice applies the existing Code and supporting guidance. Code amendments were floated after the 2024 roundtable, but none had been adopted when this page was written. Chapter 13 on records was revised in April 2026, alongside the AI advice.
The vet who relied on the output usually carries the professional responsibility, because the RCVS says the user chose the tool and must appraise it. A defect in the tool may give the practice a claim against the supplier, depending on the contract. Practice leaders who chose the system can also be accountable under 17.8.
Often it will respond as it would to any negligence claim, but it depends on the policy terms. The RCVS has not addressed AI and insurance, so check the wording for technology, data or software exclusions and confirm locums are covered.
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.
