The Vet’s New Toolkit

I opened the medical record at 9:42 a.m. for a routine wellness exam of a Labrador. Before the dog stepped through the door the digital “visit” had already begun: three weeks of continuous activity data from the owner’s tracker sat attached, ready for review. Activity levels had slipped by 18 % in the last ten days, sleep-quality scores shifted from consistently green to yellow to red, and resting heart rate trended upward. By 9:45, when the dog trotted into the exam room, the physical exam confirmed what the data had whispered: subtle right-hip extension discomfort, early muscle atrophy in the right hind limb, radiographs showing moderate osteoarthritis. We began treatment that day rather than waiting for the limp to become obvious.

Welcome to veterinary care in 2025: the exam room remains vital, but it no longer operates in isolation from a data stream that started days or weeks earlier.

For decades veterinary practices operated on episodic snapshots: a fifteen-minute appointment every few months, history, physical exam, diagnostics, client education—all compressed. Wearables and remote monitoring are disrupting that rhythm, expanding the moment of care beyond the clinic walls. Devices worn by pets create a kind of virtual clinic that never closes.

These tools don’t replace the in-person exam; they augment it. As one review summarizes: “Wearable activity trackers and health-monitoring devices give pet owners and veterinary professionals unprecedented access to real-time data about their pets’ well-being.” Because animals generate data continuously, veterinarians can intervene earlier and more precisely.

Telemedicine, once a novelty, now plays a starring role. A parent might call about a cat with reduced appetite; instead of asking vague questions (“How much less? How long?”) the vet reviews three days of collar-based activity, sleep and heart-rate trends. The conversation shifts from investigative to diagnostic.

When I graduated from vet school, the curriculum taught interpreting radiographs, bloodwork, and urinalysis—not how to read weeks of accelerometer output or interpret heart‐rate variability trends from a collar. That’s changed. Continuing education is now teaching clinicians to recognize what the data actually mean and what they don’t.

For example: “Activity counts do not equal exercise quality. Sleep duration does not equal restorative sleep. Heart-rate trends suggest autonomic-nervous-system function but cannot diagnose specific conditions.” A single elevated resting heart rate by itself is often meaningless. But when it persists over five nights and is paired with falling activity and rising sleep-fragmentation, the pattern becomes a signal worth acting on.

When reviewed in aggregate, the literature supports this shift: one recent review concluded that accelerometry-based physical-activity monitors (PAMs) are useful tools for companion-animal chronic-pain research, but that interpretation requires understanding both technical and biological factors. Another study found that owners receiving alerts from a wearable (scratching/licking behavior) were significantly more likely to visit the clinic shortly thereafter.

Integrating wearable-data review into a practice built on tight appointment windows requires process redesign. Some clinics now assign veterinary technicians to pre-screen uploaded data and flag trends for the doctor. Others build five-minute “data review” blocks into each appointment. Larger specialty hospitals have cloud-based practice-management systems built to ingest wearable data directly into the medical-record workflow; smaller general practices often receive PDF reports, email screenshots, or print-outs added manually. That friction reduces consistency even when clinicians see the value.

Cost itself is rarely the barrier. Many wearable devices cost US$50–300 with monthly subscription fees (zero to ~US$30). But the time cost, 10–15 minutes per patient for data review, interpretation and parent communication, is what most practices struggle with.

The regulatory and liability environment also remains ambiguous. If a wearable alert is ignored and the pet later experiences a condition the algorithm flagged, who is responsible? If a veterinarian misses a subtle trend in wearable data, does that raise the standard of care? These questions are still being worked out in the veterinary regulatory space.

When both parent and vet access the same continuous data stream, the dynamic of the relationship changes. Parents often arrive with specific chart-printed trends rather than vague descriptions of “She seems off lately.” That empowers but also introduces new anxiety: some parents over-interpret minor fluctuations; others expect wearable data to replace professional evaluation, rather than complement it.

The most successful practices treat wearables as communication tools, not substitutes. They teach parents how to interpret what’s meaningful, and what isn’t. This builds trust, avoids data-induced anxiety, and preserves the veterinary-client-patient triad.

The next evolution of the vet’s toolkit lies in deeper integration between wearable data and clinical decision-support systems. Imagine an AI engine monitoring data streams from hundreds of pets simultaneously, flagging concerning deviations for vet review before parents even call. The technical foundations exist; what remains are validation studies, regulatory frameworks and workflow adoption.

For instance, one study of wearable monitors found meaningful correlations between activity-pattern changes and osteoarthritis in dogs—but noted significant variability depending on device sensor, body-condition score, age and species.

As predictive analytics advance, we’ll move from correlation to causation: knowing not just that a pattern predicts illness, but that it causes deterioration and thus requires intervention.

The bottom line: the veterinary toolkit has expanded. It no longer ends at the stethoscope and thermometer. It now includes continuous physiological data streams, machine-learning interpretation, and enhanced parent-collaboration. Technology optimizes, not replaces, clinical judgement. When parents understand its capabilities and limitations, and when veterinarians weave it thoughtfully into the exam process, animals benefit.

The appointment still starts when the animal walks through the door—but now it often began days earlier, when the first data point was uploaded. The clinic never closes anymore. It simply becomes less visible.

If your pet wears a wearable device, ask your veterinarian whether their practice can integrate that data into the medical record. Discuss which metrics they consider most clinically useful for your pet’s specific health status. Understand that data-sharing is best when it’s collaborative, not a substitute for regular veterinary care. Technology enhances your relationship with your vet—it does not replace it.

In the next article we’ll explore “Are We Over-Measuring Our Pets? Where insight ends and obsession begins”, looking at the tension between helpful monitoring and anxiety-inducing over-tracking.


References

-Sekhar, M. et al. (2024). Commercially available wearable health monitor in dogs is … American Journal of Veterinary Research, 85(3).
-Thonen-Fleck, C., Sharon, K. P., Enomoto, M., LeBouef, M., Roberts, D. L., Gruen, M. E., & Lascelles, B. D. X. (2025). Physical Activity Monitors in Companion Animal Chronic Pain -Research—A Review Focused on Osteoarthritis Pain. Animals, 15(14), 2025.
-Schork, I. G. et al. (2023). Testing the Accuracy of Wearable Technology
-Carson, A., et al. (2023). Response of pet owners to Whistle FIT® activity monitor alerts. Frontiers in Veterinary Science.
-Beal, A. DVM. (2024). The future of pet health monitoring: Wearable technology in veterinary practice. IDEXX blog.
-Miguín, M., et al. (2025). Towards Effective Wearable Design