# Problem Oriented Medical Records in Veterinary Practice ## Key Takeaways - The Problem-Oriented Medical Record (POMR) structures veterinary documentation around an explicit problem list, forcing articulation of clinical reasoning for each identified issue through the SOAP (Subjective, Objective, Assessment, Plan) format. This system separates data from interpretation, enhancing clarity and traceability for subsequent clinicians. - The problem list is the central organizing element, requiring problems to be defined at the highest level of certainty (e.g., diagnosis over sign) and maintained as a living document with dates of onset and resolution to support longitudinal patient management. - Subjective data captures owner-reported history and signalment verbatim or paraphrased, while Objective data records measurable, verifiable findings from examinations and diagnostics, avoiding interpretation within these sections. - The Assessment section synthesizes subjective and objective findings to state the problem, rank differential diagnoses with supporting rationale referencing specific data, and acknowledge uncertainty, thereby guiding the diagnostic and therapeutic plan. - The Plan section translates the assessment into actionable steps, detailing diagnostics, treatments, client communication, and monitoring criteria for each problem, ensuring coherence and traceability to the assessment. - Common failure modes include a static problem list, assessments that merely restate objective findings without interpretation, and incomplete plans lacking specific doses, durations, or reassessment intervals, all of which compromise patient care continuity and professional standards. --- The problem oriented medical record (POMR) is a structured documentation system that organizes patient data around an explicit problem list. Each identified problem receives its own assessment and plan, which forces the clinician to articulate the reasoning behind every diagnostic and therapeutic decision. This article explains how to construct a functional problem list and how to write each SOAP component with veterinary-specific examples. It serves veterinary students who are learning clinical documentation and early-career practitioners who want to refine their medical record habits. The POMR framework answers a practical question: how does a clinician convert a disorganized collection of history, examination findings, and test results into a coherent record that another veterinarian can read and act upon? The answer lies in separating data from interpretation. Subjective and objective findings are recorded without inference. The assessment is where interpretation occurs, and the plan translates that interpretation into action. This separation protects the record from premature conclusions and makes the clinical reasoning visible to anyone who reads the chart. The SOAP format is one implementation of the POMR approach. SOAP stands for Subjective, Objective, Assessment, and Plan. Each letter names a distinct section of the record for a single problem. The format is cross-species and applies equally to a canine dermatology case, a feline chronic kidney disease case, or a bovine lameness workup. The structure does not change with the species, though the content of each section must reflect species-specific physiology and husbandry. ## At a Glance | Element | Purpose | Common Failure Mode | |---|---|---| | Problem list | Names each active problem at a consistent level of abstraction | Mixing diagnoses with signs, such as listing "diabetes mellitus" and "polyuria" as separate problems | | Subjective (S) | Records owner-reported history and signalment in the owner's words | Including clinician interpretation or physical examination findings | | Objective (O) | Records measurable, reproducible findings from examination and diagnostics | Recording normal findings as a narrative instead of a systems review | | Assessment (A) | States the problem, the differential diagnosis, and the reasoning | Restating the problem without ranking differentials or explaining the logic | | Plan (P) | Lists diagnostics, treatments, client communication, and recheck criteria | Writing only a treatment list with no diagnostic or monitoring plan | | Problem resolution | Documents when a problem is resolved, reclassified, or merged | Leaving resolved problems on the list indefinitely | | Medical record standards | Meets professional and regulatory expectations for documentation | Omitting the reasoning behind clinical decisions | ## The Problem List as the Organizing Structure The problem list is the backbone of the POMR. Every entry in the record, whether a laboratory result, a radiograph finding, or a treatment note, must be traceable to a problem on the list. This traceability is what distinguishes a POMR from a source oriented record, which organizes data by its origin such as laboratory reports or radiology files. A problem is defined as anything that requires management or diagnostic evaluation. This includes active diseases, resolved conditions that still affect current decisions, and significant risk factors. The problem list should be maintained at a consistent level of abstraction. A diagnosis such as "canine atopic dermatitis" and a sign such as "pruritus" should not appear as parallel problems because they describe the same issue at different levels of specificity. The rule is to use the highest level of certainty available. If a diagnosis is confirmed, list the diagnosis. If only a sign is present, list the sign. The problem list is a living document. Problems are added when new issues are identified, modified when new information changes their status, and marked resolved when they no longer require management. The date of onset and date of resolution should be recorded for each problem. This longitudinal view supports chronic disease management and provides context for future episodes of illness. ## Subjective: Capturing the Owner's Report The subjective section records what the owner reports and what the animal experiences. It includes the signalment, the chief complaint, and the history as provided by the owner. Direct quotations are useful when the owner's phrasing carries clinical weight, such as "she has been drinking a lot more water for the past two weeks." The subjective section is not the place for physical examination findings or for the clinician's interpretation of the history. Signalment belongs in the subjective section because it is reported information, not a measured finding. Species, breed, age, sex, and neuter status are recorded here. The history should include the onset, duration, progression, and quality of the reported signs. Questions about appetite, thirst, urination, defecation, activity, and behavior provide the framework for a complete history, but the record should reflect what the owner actually reported instead of a template of every question asked. ## Objective: Measurable Findings The objective section contains findings that can be verified by another observer. Physical examination findings, vital parameters, body weight, body condition score, laboratory results, imaging findings, and response to previous treatments all belong here. The objective section is written in a neutral, descriptive tone. "The dog is painful on abdominal palpation" is an interpretation. "The dog tenses, vocalizes, and turns the head toward the abdomen during deep palpation of the cranial abdomen" is an objective finding. The level of detail in the objective section should match the clinical context. A wellness examination may record a complete systems review in abbreviated form. An emergency presentation may focus on the abnormal systems and record the normal systems briefly. The objective section must include enough data for a subsequent clinician to assess progression. Serial body weights, temperature trends, and repeat laboratory values are meaningful only when recorded consistently. ## Assessment: Clinical Reasoning Made Visible The assessment is the interpretive section of the SOAP note. It states the problem, lists the differential diagnoses, and explains the reasoning that supports the working diagnosis. The assessment is where the clinician demonstrates that the subjective and objective findings have been synthesized into a coherent clinical picture. A strong assessment names the problem, ranks the differentials by likelihood, and explains why the leading differential is preferred. The reasoning should reference specific findings from the subjective and objective sections. "The leading differential is canine hypothyroidism because the dog has symmetric truncal alopecia, a 12 percent weight gain without appetite change, and a low total thyroxine concentration" is a defensible assessment. "The dog probably has hypothyroidism" is not. The assessment should also acknowledge uncertainty. When the evidence does not clearly favor one diagnosis, the assessment should say so and explain what additional information would discriminate between the leading differentials. This explicit statement of uncertainty guides the plan and sets expectations for the owner. ## Plan: Actionable Next Steps The plan section translates the assessment into action. It should address four domains: diagnostics, treatment, client communication, and monitoring. The diagnostic plan lists the tests that will confirm or exclude the leading differentials. The treatment plan lists the medications, procedures, or husbandry changes that will be implemented. The client communication plan records what the owner was told and what decisions were made. The monitoring plan specifies the recheck interval and the parameters that will be assessed at recheck. Each element of the plan should be traceable to the assessment. A plan that orders a bile acids test, prescribes a hepatic support diet, and schedules a two week recheck for a dog with suspected portosystemic shunt is coherent. A plan that orders the same test without explaining why it was chosen, or that prescribes the diet without a stated rationale, is incomplete. The plan must also address the practical realities of the case. Financial constraints, owner compliance, and the availability of referral services are legitimate considerations that belong in the plan. The record should reflect these discussions so that future clinicians understand why certain diagnostic or therapeutic steps were or were not pursued. Professional documentation standards reinforce these expectations. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons includes clinical record keeping among its Day One Competences, and the American Veterinary Medical Association provides practice resources on medical record content and retention [RCVS Day One Competences](https://www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/undergraduate-education/) [AVMA practice resources](https://www.avma.org/resources-tools). Species-specific diagnostic and therapeutic guidance is available from standard references such as the MSD Veterinary Manual [MSD Veterinary Manual](https://www.msdvetmanual.com/). ## The Assessment Sequence: From Signalment to Differential List The assessment section carries the clinical reasoning of the entire record. A well constructed assessment moves from the problem list to a prioritized differential list, then to a stated diagnosis or working diagnosis, and finally to the rationale that connects the evidence. The reader, whether a colleague covering emergency duty or a student reviewing the case, should be able to reconstruct your thought process from the written assessment alone. Begin with the signalment and history that frame the problem. A pruritic dog aged two years with onset at six months suggests atopic dermatitis, while the same clinical sign in a nine year old dog with weight loss shifts the differential toward neoplasia or endocrine disease. State the signalment once in the assessment and do not repeat it in every problem. Prioritize the differential list by likelihood, not by alphabetical order or by severity alone. The most dangerous condition belongs on the list even when unlikely, but it does not automatically occupy the first position. For each differential, state the feature in the history, physical examination, or diagnostic data that supports or refutes it. A differential with no supporting or refuting evidence is a placeholder, not a clinical judgment. The assessment must distinguish between problems that are primary, secondary, and concurrent. Primary problems are the initiating disease process. Secondary problems arise as complications of the primary disease. Concurrent problems are unrelated but present at the same time. This distinction changes the plan. Treating a secondary bacterial pyoderma without addressing the primary atopic dermatitis fails the patient, and recording both without the relationship fails the record. ## Writing the Plan: Structure and Priorities The plan translates the assessment into action. Organize the plan by problem, using the same numbering as the problem list. Each problem receives its own plan section. This structure allows any reader to track the management of a single problem through the record without searching the entire file. Within each problem plan, separate diagnostic, therapeutic, and monitoring components. Diagnostic components include further tests, imaging, or referral. Therapeutic components include medical or surgical interventions. Monitoring components specify the parameters, the frequency, and the owner-observable signs that should trigger re-evaluation. A plan that specifies monitoring parameters gives the owner concrete guidance and gives the next clinician a baseline for comparison. State the expected response to therapy and the time frame for reassessment. A dog started on a trial of a hydrolysed diet for suspected adverse food reaction should show improvement in pruritus within four to eight weeks. If improvement does not occur within that window, the plan must include the next step, such as re-challenge with the original diet or progression to intradermal testing. Plans that lack a defined reassessment point drift, and the case loses its problem-oriented structure. ## Documentation Standards and Legal Context The medical record is a professional and legal document. The [Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Day One Competences](https://www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/undergraduate-education/) include the expectation that graduates maintain accurate clinical records. This expectation reflects a broader professional standard: the record must be contemporaneous, legible, and complete enough that another clinician could continue the case without verbal handover. Record the owner's report in the subjective section using their words where they add precision, but translate colloquial descriptions into clinical terms in the assessment. "He has been scratching a lot" becomes "owner reports generalized pruritus of two weeks duration" in the problem list. The record should not contain judgmental language about the owner or the patient. Factual observations about compliance, such as "owner reports difficulty administering oral medication," belong in the record because they affect the plan. Species and production system change documentation requirements. Food animal practice may require records that support withdrawal period calculations and residue avoidance. The [World Organization for Animal Health terrestrial animal health standards](https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/standards/codes-and-manuals/terrestrial-code-online-access/) address surveillance and disease reporting obligations that may apply to notifiable conditions. Equine practice may require additional documentation for competition or transport purposes. The problem-oriented format accommodates these requirements, but the clinician must know which additional elements apply in their jurisdiction and species. ## Annotated SOAP Template The following template shows the structure with annotations for each section. Use it as a starting point and adapt it to the case. | Section | Content | Annotation | |---------|---------|------------| | S | Owner's report in their words, paraphrased | Record duration, progression, and any treatments already given. Include appetite, thirst, urination, and defecation where relevant to the problem. | | O | Physical examination, vital signs, body weight, diagnostic test results | Record objective data only. Do not interpret findings here. Include negative findings that are relevant to the differential list. | | A | Problem list with differentials, working diagnosis, rationale | State the relationship between problems. Prioritize differentials. Explain why the working diagnosis is preferred. | | P | Diagnostic, therapeutic, and monitoring plan for each problem | Number the plan to match the problem list. Specify reassessment intervals and owner-observable monitoring parameters. | ## Common Pitfalls and Their Corrections The most frequent error in veterinary SOAP notes is writing the assessment as a restatement of the objective findings. "Assessment: the dog has a cough" adds nothing to the record. The assessment must answer why the dog has a cough and what conditions are being considered. A second common error is the empty plan. Writing "continue current therapy" without specifying the duration, the monitoring parameters, or the reassessment date leaves the case without direction. Every plan should answer three questions: what will be done, how will we know it is working, and when will we reassess. A third error is the failure to update the problem list. Problems that resolve should be marked as resolved with the date. New problems that arise during treatment should be added with their own assessment and plan. The problem list is a living document, not a static snapshot from the first consultation. A fourth error is the omission of negative findings that are diagnostically significant. The absence of a heart murmur in a dog with syncope, or the absence of pyrexia in a cat with lethargy, narrows the differential list. Record significant negatives in the objective section. A fifth error is the use of vague language that cannot be audited. "Patient doing well" does not tell the next clinician what improved, by how much, or which signs persist. Replace vague statements with specific observations: "owner reports pruritus reduced from constant scratching to occasional licking, no new lesions noted." The [MSD Veterinary Manual](https://www.msdvetmanual.com/) provides species-specific reference material that supports accurate assessment and plan construction. Use such references to confirm diagnostic criteria and monitoring parameters instead of relying on memory alone, particularly for less common conditions or species. ## Adapting the Format Across Clinical Contexts The problem-oriented format serves all species, but the emphasis shifts with the clinical context. In emergency practice, the assessment and plan may be brief and focused on stabilization, with the full problem list developed once the patient is stable. In referral practice, the assessment carries greater weight because the referring veterinarian has already performed the initial workup. In production animal practice, the record may cover a group instead of an individual, and the problem list may address herd-level issues such as nutrition or biosecurity. The format also adapts to the equipment available. A practice with in-house laboratory capability can document hematology and biochemistry results directly in the objective section. A practice that sends samples to an external laboratory records the submission in the plan and the results when they return. The record must document the diagnostic sequence regardless of where the testing occurs. The [American Veterinary Medical Association practice resources](https://www.avma.org/resources-tools) offer guidance on record keeping standards and professional expectations that apply across practice types. Consult these resources alongside species-specific references when establishing or updating practice documentation protocols. ## Recognized Failure Modes and Early Detection The problem oriented record fails in predictable ways. The most consequential failure is the drifting problem list, where the list no longer matches the patient's active issues. This occurs when clinicians add new problems without numbering them, merge distinct conditions prematurely, or leave resolved problems in place. Detect this by auditing the list at each revisit. Every entry should have a current status, and every new diagnostic finding should either create a new problem or attach to an existing one. A problem list that has not changed across three visits for a deteriorating patient is not stable, it is stale. The second failure mode is the copied assessment. When the Assessment section repeats the Objective findings verbatim, the clinician has not committed to a diagnostic interpretation. The assessment must state what the findings mean, not what they are. A useful check is to cover the Objective section and read the Assessment alone. If the assessment does not make clinical sense without the objective data, it is insufficiently interpretive. The third failure mode is the plan that cannot be executed. Plans that reference "standard therapy" or "routine monitoring" without specifying drug, dose, route, frequency, duration, and recheck interval force the next clinician to reconstruct intent. This is particularly hazardous in referral settings where the receiving clinician must act on the record alone. The [RCVS Day One Competences](https://www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/undergraduate-education/) require graduates to maintain accurate clinical records that support continuity of care, and an ambiguous plan fails that standard. ## Common Errors in Novice Records Students and early practitioners make characteriztic mistakes. The first is writing the subjective section as a verbatim transcript of the owner's narrative. The subjective section should be a filtered summary that preserves the owner's observations in their own words where those words carry diagnostic weight, but compresses the rest. "Owner reports dog has been drinking more for about a week and has had two accidents in the house" is adequate. A paragraph describing the owner's daily routine is not. The second error is treating the objective section as a complete physical examination even when one was not performed. If the examination was problem focused, the record must say so. Writing "all systems normal" when only the abdomen was palpated is inaccurate and potentially misleading. The corrective action is to record what was actually examined and to note explicitly what was deferred. The third error is the differential list that is exhaustive but unordered. A list of 15 differentials for polyuria communicates less than a ranked list of five with reasoning. Rank by prevalence, signalment, and the specific findings in this case. The [MSD Veterinary Manual](https://www.msdvetmanual.com/) provides species specific prevalence data that can anchor these rankings, but the final order must reflect the individual patient. The fourth error is writing the plan before completing the assessment. This produces plans that treat signs instead of problems. The corrective action is to force the sequence: assessment first, plan second, and to resist the urge to prescribe while still gathering data. ## Troubleshooting Table | Observation | Likely Cause | Discriminating Check | |---|---|---| | Problem list unchanged across multiple visits | Problems not updated at each encounter | Compare list to current assessment, verify each problem has a status | | Assessment repeats objective findings | Lack of interpretive step | Cover Objective section, confirm Assessment stands alone | | Plan lacks dose or duration | Incomplete plan construction | Check each plan element against a formulary or [MSD Veterinary Manual](https://www.msdvetmanual.com/) reference | | Differential list unordered | Listing without reasoning | Ask the writer to justify the top three differentials for this patient | | Subjective section excessively long | Failure to filter owner narrative | Confirm the section preserves only observations relevant to the problem list | | Resolved problems remain active | No status update on resolution | Mark resolved problems with a date and move them to an inactive list | ## Limitations of the Evidence and Divergent Expert Opinion The problem oriented record has been a mainstay of human and veterinary medicine for decades, but its superiority over alternative formats is not established by controlled trials. Most guidance is expert opinion and professional consensus instead of outcome data. The [AVMA practice resources](https://www.avma.org/resources-tools) and the [RCVS Day One Competences](https://www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/undergraduate-education/) both mandate accurate record keeping, but neither provides a single mandated format. This leaves room for institutional variation. Expert opinion diverges on several points. Some authorities advocate a separate problem list for every abnormality, including minor findings such as dental tartar or mild obesity. Others argue that the list should contain only active problems requiring current management. The former approach is more complete but produces longer lists that may obscure priorities. The latter is more practical but risks losing track of chronic issues that are not currently being treated. There is also disagreement about whether the assessment should contain a single unified problem statement or separate assessments for each problem. The single statement approach works well for patients with one dominant issue. The per problem approach is clearer for complex cases but produces longer records. Choose the format that serves the case, and be consistent within a single record. ## Escalation, Referral, and Regulatory Reporting The problem oriented record should make escalation decisions explicit. When a case exceeds the clinician's comfort or the practice's capacity, the plan should state the referral indication, the intended recipient, and the timeline. Common triggers include diagnostic imaging beyond the practice's equipment, surgical procedures requiring specialist skill, and medical conditions that have failed first line therapy. Laboratory involvement is a form of escalation that should be planned, not reactive. If the assessment identifies a differential that requires specialised testing, the plan should name the test, the laboratory, and the clinical decision that the result will inform. This is particularly important for infectious disease testing where the [WOAH terrestrial animal health standards](https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/standards/codes-and-manuals/terrestrial-code-online-access/) may apply to notifiable diseases. Regulatory reporting obligations vary by jurisdiction and species. The record should document the clinician's awareness of reportable disease status and the action taken. Where uncertainty exists about whether a condition is reportable, the plan should include a specific step to verify requirements with the relevant authority. This is not optional documentation, it is a professional obligation that the record must capture. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### How do I keep a problem list manageable when a patient has multiple concurrent diseases? Prioritize by immediate threat to life, then by impact on quality of life, then by reversibility. Active problems belong on the list, resolved or inactive problems move to a historical section. Merge problems that share a pathophysiological basis once confirmed, for example chronic kidney disease and systemic hypertension, but keep them separate until the link is proven. Review the list at every recheck and delete problems that no longer exist. A list longer than eight active problems becomes unwieldy, consider grouping related issues into a single problem with subcomponents. The [RCVS Day One Competences](https://www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/undergraduate-education/) expect graduates to maintain organized clinical records, and a disciplined problem list is the foundation of that skill. ### What should I do when the owner cannot afford the recommended diagnostic workup? Document the financial limitation explicitly in the record, then reorder the diagnostic plan by value per cost. Ask which tests would change immediate management and run those first. Offer staged diagnostics where clinically safe, for example biochemistry now and imaging next week. State in the assessment which differentials remain unresolved because of the limitation. This protects you legally and clinically. The [AVMA practice resources](https://www.avma.org/resources-tools) address economic constraints as a routine part of clinical decision making. Never omit the problem from the list because testing was declined, the problem exists regardless of diagnostic confirmation. ### How does the SOAP format need to change for herd health or production animal work? The patient is the group, not the individual. The subjective component captures the producer's observations of morbidity, feed intake, and production parameters. Objective data include group-level measurements such as average daily gain, milk production, and mortality rates. The problem list names group-level issues, for example poor growth in weaner pigs or elevated somatic cell count in the milking herd. Assessment integrates individual necropsy findings with group epidemiology. The plan addresses treatment of affected animals, prevention for the rest of the group, and biosecurity. [WOAH terrestrial animal health standards](https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/standards/codes-and-manuals/terrestrial-code-online-access/) provide the framework for disease surveillance and control reporting that may be required in production settings. ### How should I document a case where the owner declines a recommended referral? Record the referral recommendation, the specific benefits discussed, the owner's decision, and the reasons given. Note the date and time of the conversation and who was present. In the assessment, state how the decision changes the risk profile and which monitoring will substitute for specialist care. This documentation matters because referral decisions carry medicolegal weight. The [RCVS Day One Competences](https://www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/undergraduate-education/) include communication skills for exactly these conversations. If the owner later claims the referral was never offered, your record is the only defense. Keep the tone neutral and factual, without judgment of the owner's choice. ### What is the minimum acceptable record when time pressure is extreme? Write the problem list and a one-line assessment even if nothing else is possible. A record that says "Problem: vomiting. Assessment: differentials include dietary indiscretion, pancreatitis, foreign body. Plan: antiemetic, fluids, recheck 24 hours" is defensible. A record that says only "vomiting, treated" is not. Use abbreviations your clinic has approved, but never invent your own. The [MSD Veterinary Manual](https://www.msdvetmanual.com/) can be consulted for differential lists and monitoring parameters when you need to write a complete assessment quickly. Backfill the subjective and objective sections as soon as the emergency resolves, and date the amendment. An incomplete record is acceptable temporarily, an inaccurate record is never acceptable. ### How do I explain the problem-oriented approach to a client who finds it impersonal? Frame it as safety and continuity. Tell the owner that the problem list ensures nothing gets missed and that any veterinarian seeing the pet later will understand the full picture immediately. Use their pet's actual problems as examples: "I am tracking three things today, the lameness, the fever, and the weight loss, and I will check all three at every visit." This converts an abstract documentation system into a concrete care plan. The [AVMA practice resources](https://www.avma.org/resources-tools) emphasize client communication as a core professional skill. Most owners respond well when they see the list working, for example when a recheck visit starts with the veterinarian reviewing the same three problems without prompting. ## Related Clinical & Scientific Guides * [Veterinary Case Presentation: Structure and Delivery](/knowledge/veterinary-medicine/clinical-skills-training/veterinary-case-presentation-structure-delivery) * [Veterinary Communication in the Workplace: Team Dynamics](/knowledge/veterinary-medicine/clinical-skills-training/veterinary-communication-workplace-team-dynamics) * [Monitoring Plans for Hospitalized Veterinary Patients](/knowledge/veterinary-medicine/clinical-skills-training/monitoring-plans-hospitalized-veterinary-patients) ## References and Further Reading - [Effects of substratum morphology on cell physiology.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18615800/). 1994. - [Technical intelligence in animals: the kea model.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16909237/). 2006. - [From tiger to panda: animal head detection.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21156394/). 2011. - [Desertification in Russia: Problems and solutions (an example in the Republic of Kalmykia-Khalmg Tangch).](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24197860/). 1995. - [RCVS Day One Competences](https://www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/undergraduate-education/). RCVS. - [MSD Veterinary Manual, Professional Edition](https://www.msdvetmanual.com/). MSD Veterinary Manual. - [American Veterinary Medical Association Practice Resources](https://www.avma.org/resources-tools). American Veterinary Medical Association. - [WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Code](https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/standards/codes-and-manuals/terrestrial-code-online-access/). WOAH. ## Related Articles - [Structuring the Assessment and Plan in a Veterinary SOAP Note](/knowledge/veterinary-medicine/clinical-skills-training/soap-notes-veterinary-medical-records) - [Problem-Oriented Approach in Veterinary Medicine: A Clinical Framework](/knowledge/veterinary-medicine/clinical-skills-training/problem-oriented-approach-veterinary-medicine-clinical-framework) - [Veterinary Clinical Skills Models for Practice](/knowledge/veterinary-medicine/clinical-skills-training/veterinary-clinical-skills-models-practice) - [Veterinary Suture Practice: Techniques and Models](/knowledge/veterinary-medicine/clinical-skills-training/veterinary-suture-practice-techniques-models) - [Bandaging Materials in Veterinary Practice: A Guide to Selection and Use](/knowledge/veterinary-medicine/clinical-skills-training/bandaging-materials-veterinary-practice-guide-selection-use) > This article is educational professional reference material for veterinary audiences. It is not a substitute for veterinary diagnosis, individual clinical judgment, current product labeling, or applicable regulatory requirements.