Veterinary professionals have been urged to be “open-minded” about how AI could enhance their work in practice.

The plea came as a panel of industry experts debated the technology’s implications for the sector during the third Vet Times Big 6 Live session.

But the discussion, held as part of the annual SPVS Congress in Birmingham, also heard calls for the development of a framework to aid appropriate deployment.

Growing discussions

The explosion of wider societal interest in AI technology in recent times has been reflected by growing discussion of how it could be applied to veterinary practice.

And a key message to delegates focused on the importance of them taking an active part in the debate.

Jack Peploe, founder of Veterinary IT Services, said the profession had shown its ability to adapt to change and expressed confidence it would “excel” in this area, too.

He went on: “It’s our job and our duty, as much as possible, to show what can be done and for you guys to be as open-minded as possible.”

VetCT head of communications Liz Barton acknowledged there were likely to be unexpected outcomes from its use, but argued that professionals can, and should, set the principles and guidelines that will govern it.

She said: “What we should do is engage with this process of AI development from beginning to end.

“At the moment it’s the sort of wild west out there. Anyone can go out there, develop AI tools and potentially deploy them directly to pet owners.

“If they’re coming into our practices, we need to have some framework to be able to tell them how we integrate them into our clinical decision-making in a way that benefits patient outcomes.”

Regulating staff

PetsApp chief executive Thom Jenkins warned that future models should seek to avoid regulating veterinary staff out of engaging with the technology.

But RCVS president Sue Paterson said the body had already begun to consider the issue and is planning to hold stakeholder meetings on it in the near future.

She argued that the college’s role was to provide guidance, rather than to regulate individual devices that would be the subject of their own monitoring and feedback processes.

She said: “As a clinician, I see this as a huge opportunity for us to improve animal health and welfare. I think it’s really, really exciting.

“AI gives us huge potential, under the right circumstances, to improve the way in which we provide care.”

University of Liverpool School of Veterinary Science lecturer PJ Noble cautioned that the regulatory challenge could be made more difficult by continuing advances in technology that are likely to have greater capabilities than platforms that are already available.

He also called for professionals to be transparent about their usage, while other panellists were in broad agreement that the technology would not replace vets yet.

‘Final say’

Dr Jenkins said there was already evidence to show that vets who used AI performed better than both those who did not and AI platforms alone, while Mr Peploe told delegates: “You are the experts. You have the final say.”

But HelloVet’s chief veterinary technological officer Oli Viner rejected warnings that the sector is potentially as much as 20 years behind other sectors in its use of AI as he argued the profession faced less steep engagement barriers.

He said: “The opportunities are ripe for us in the veterinary profession.”

Dr Jenkins also argued there was “no reason” for the sector to be left behind, while Dr Barton said she was particularly excited by the “one health” potential of the technology for collaboration with human medicine practitioners.

The full debate will be available to listen to as a podcast via vettimes.co.uk soon.