Exclusive The media regulator has ruled that Mail Online did not breach journalist code by publishing an article claiming that GPs have ‘fuelled’ a crisis in England’s A&E departments.

In June, the Doctors’ Association UK (DAUK) raised a formal letter of complaint to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) about the ‘misleading’ anti-GP coverage,which garnered 2,395 signatures. 

It said that Mail Online’s story breached the ‘accuracy’ clause of the Editors’ Code of Practice (Clause 1).

But following an assessment of the complaint, IPSO today concluded that it ‘does not raise a possible breach of the Editors’ Code’.

Our initial letter, IPSO’s response and our appeal can be viewed here

Read the Pulse coverage here and here

Dear Independent Press Standards Organisation,

We would like to raise a formal complaint following a recent article published in the Mail Online by Mr Connor Boyd, Deputy Health Editor.

On 8 June 2022, Mr Boyd wrote an article entitled, “Fury at video that lays bare huge A&E waits ‘being fueled by GPs’”.
 (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10896287/The-shocking-video-lays-bare-dire-state-NHS.html)

The opening paragraph of Mr Boyd’s article states:

“A dire lack of access to GPs has been blamed for the country’s A&E crisis after video emerged of patients being told they faced waits of up to 13 hours in an emergency department.”


In reference to the Editors’ Code of Practice, we wish to report breaches of the following sections of Clause 1 (Accuracy):

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

There is no evidence whatsoever to demonstrate that long A&E waits result from, or are fuelled by GPs.

This headline is clearly inaccurate, misleading and not supported by text. Whilst quotations marks are used in the headline, these specific words are not attributed to anyone (anonymous or otherwise) in the article.

Our most recent appointment data from NHS Digital shows that 25.3 million GP appointments were held in April 2022, up from 16.6 million GP appointments in April 2020.

Appointments in General Practice, April 2022 – NHS Digital: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/appointments-in-general-practice/april-2022

During this same time, there were 2,028,228 A&E attendances in April 2022 compared to 916,575 attendances in April 2020.

Statistics » A&E Attendances and Emergency Admissions 2022-23: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/ae-waiting-times-and-activity/ae-attendances-and-emergency-admissions-2022-23/

It is therefore clear that all frontline health services are stretched at this time, yet Mr Boyd unreasonably and inaccurately chooses to blame GPs for delays within hospital settings and also bed shortages.

Throughout his article, Mr Boyd makes no attempt to distinguish between comment, conjecture and fact.

It is evident that this is not an opinion piece, and it appears that no GPs were interviewed and no professional medical bodies were approached for comment.

We respectfully seek your support to help correct this false narrative and restore the integrity of our GPs that continue to work above and beyond the call of duty.

Dr Ellen Welch, GP, Co-Chair DAUK
Dr Matt Kneale, Foundation doctor in A&E Co-Chair DAUK
Dr Elizabeth Toberty, GP Lead DAUK

Response from IPSO

DAUK will be appealing the above decision by IPSO. Our appeal:

Pulse have followed this story closely and you can read their coverage here

Read the Latest Response by IPSO on our appeal: 

Dear Dr Welch,

The Complaints Committee has considered your complaint, the email from IPSO’s Executive notifying you of its view that your complaint did not raise a possible breach of the Code, and your email requesting a review of the Executive’s decision. The Committee agreed the following decision: The Committee appreciated that this article was a source of frustration for you and that you considered it to be exacerbating low morale among GPs. However, while the Committee was sorry to hear of these concerns, IPSO can only address concerns linked to the Editors’ Code of Practice. You provided data which you considered demonstrated that the selection of data in the article was misleading. However, the Committee wished to highlight that newspapers are entitled to publish what they choose, provided the information is accurate. Where you did not dispute that the figures themselves selected for publication were accurate, there was no reason to investigate a possible breach of Clause 1 on this point. You expressed concerns that the article’s headline was based on opinions of people quoted in the article, rather than facts. The Committee firstly noted that the were no specific findings of inaccuracies in the article. Additionally, the Editors’ Code does not require that the headlines of news articles are not based on the opinions of individuals; the requirement is that headlines are supported by the text of the article. Where – as you pointed out – the headline is supported by opinions quoted in the article, there was no possible breach of the Code on this point. For this reason, and the reasons already provided by IPSO’s Executive, the Committee decided that your complaint did not raise a possible breach of the Code. As such, it declined to re-open your complaint. The Committee would like to thank you for giving it the opportunity to consider your concerns.

Best wishes,

Molly Richards

Complaints Officer

Media regulator IPSO reviewed the complaint lodged by DAUK against Allison Pearson’s articles in the Telegraph and ruled there was no breach of their code. Instead they suggested taking our concerns to the police.

read the background to our complaint to IPSO, their initial response, and our further reply below:

The Doctors’ Association UK acknowledge receipt of your response to our complaint against Allison Pearson’s recent articles for the Daily Telegraph and would like to lodge a formal appeal against your rejection of this complaint.

The Editors’ Code makes it clear that the press has the right to give its own opinion and to publish individual views, as long as it takes care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, and to distinguish between comment, conjecture and fact.

We also acknowledge your comments stating that:
1. You recognise the offence that Ms Pearson may have caused.
2. Ms Pearson is entitled to publish her opinions.
3. The publication of conjecture is explicitly allowed.

We maintain the view that these articles clearly and persistently demonstrate inaccurate, misleading and distorted information. At no point during the writing of these articles does Ms Pearson attempt to distinguish her comments from fact or conjecture. Opinions cannot contradict facts.

As a result Miss Pearson has, through these articles, repeatedly misrepresented the work performed in general practice, with official NHS data confirming that GPs are providing more consultations than ever before despite a significantly depleted workforce.

We are unable to find any evidence in the articles to suggest that Ms Pearson was speaking metaphorically or symbolically, particularly as she proceeded to share tragic experiences from her readers highlighting substandard care. The NHS has a robust complaints system in place, and patients who feel aggrieved by individual personal experiences with their doctor should rightly take such matters up with their practice. But the persistent mischaracterisation of an entire national workforce based on a small number of anecdotes is inaccurate, misleading and disingenuous.

We stand by each of our points, particularly point 6 describing Ms Pearson’s incitement of attacks and abuse against GPs and primary care workers. (“Time to turn the heat up on GPs who won’t see us face to face”.) We should also highlight the tragic case of a subsequent attack against GP staff that injured four workers and hospitalised three, one of whom sustained a fractured skull. 

Independent research has revealed that 83% of patients reported an overall ‘good’ experience of their GP practice this year. Comments describing GP services as “cruel, negligent and, frankly, inhuman treatment” are therefore not based on fact and, again, mischaracterise an entire workforce that has devoted their professional lives towards caring for the health of their communities. 

We respectfully urge you to review our initial complaint which has 3261 signatures of support (we invite you to read some of the signatories comments on our Instagram page). The Daily Telegraph is responsible for the conduct of its staff and we note cartoonist Bob Moran was suspended following his twitter abuse of Dr Rachel Clarke. We request you provide irrefutable evidence that Ms Pearson’s writings merely represent nothing more than opinion and conjecture.

Dear Independent Press Standards Organisation,

On 24 August 2021, Ms Pearson wrote an article entitled, “GPs are improving their work-life balance while worsening the life-death balance of everyone else”:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2021/08/24/gps-improving-work-life-balance-worsening-life-death-balance/

Subsequently, a further article was published on 1 September 2021 entitled “Time to turn the heat up on GPs who won’t see us face to face”:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2021/09/01/time-turn-heat-gps-wont-see-us-face-face/

In reference to the Editors’ Code of Practice, we wish to report breaches of the following sections of Clause 1 (Accuracy):

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.
iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.
iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Upon reading both articles, our concerns about the nature of Ms Pearson’s articles relate to:

1. Ms Pearson’s accusation that GPs are improving their work-life balance at the cost of ‘everyone else’ when the evidence shows the opposite in terms of burnout and stress. (“GPs are improving their work-life balance while worsening the life-death balance of everyone else”)
2. Ms Pearson’s demeaning description of dedicated GP receptionists as “Gorgon gatekeeper”
3. Ms Pearson’s inaccurate suggestion that GPs are “hiding” despite NHS data confirming they are providing more consultations than ever before. (“There is mounting anger that a highly-rewarded, once highly-respected profession continues to insist that it is “fully open” when personal experience suggests it is hiding behind an increasingly threadbare Covid sofa”)
4. Ms Pearson’s diminution of life-saving Covid measures that GP practices have been instructed to adopt, whilst also implying that GPs are deliberately unkind and inconsiderate. (“How about the doctors’ union tries being “kind and considerate” to patients by not insisting on strict Covid measures”)
5. Ms Pearson’s inaccurate comment that the use of virtual consultations somehow precludes ‘normal’ face to face service. (“As long as social distancing is maintained in surgery waiting rooms, there will be no return to normal face-to-face service. I’m sorry to say, that seems to suit a lot of GPs just fine…..GPs who prefer not to see the men and women who pay their salaries”) This is conjecture on Ms Pearson’s part.
6. Ms Pearson’s incitement of attacks and abuse against GPs and primary care workers by using inflammatory language like ‘Time to turn the heat up’ as though we were lobsters. (“The BMA seems shocked that long-suffering patients are finally losing it with doctors. I’m not, are you?” “Time to turn the heat up on GPs who won’t see us face to face”)
7. Ms Pearson’s potentially libellous statement that care from General Practice is “cruel, negligent and, frankly, inhuman treatment”

Throughout Ms Pearson’s articles, it appears that no GPs were interviewed and no professional medical bodies were approached for comment. We are also aware that this is not the first time Ms Pearson has been reported to the Independent Press Standards Organisation. This is neither the first time Ms Pearson has attacked GPs publicly nor is it the first complaint she will have received from frontline general practice. DAUK members have previously attempted to engage with The Telegraph and invite Ms Pearson to experience a typical day in General Practice, with no response.

Responsible media reporting is a patient safety issue, for two main reasons:
1) Patients who believe false rhetoric or conjecture may assume their surgery is closed, thus not seek help for serious symptoms. During the Covid pandemic we have already seen reduced rates of cancer diagnosis by around 40%, along with reduced presentations of other major non-Covid illnesses.
2) Those patients who believe false rhetoric or conjecture may inappropriately use emergency departments and the NHS 111 helpline, adding further pressures on our secondary care colleagues at a critical time for the NHS.

Important background information:

DAUK have publicly stated that NHS General Practice is in crisis. Contrary to inaccurate reports from Ms Pearson, GP practices have remained open throughout the pandemic.

GPs were instructed by NHS England to provide remote consultations when deemed appropriate for everyone’s protection. GPs were also informed that if a single member of staff were to contract Covid, the entire practice would need to close for 10 days, jeopardising the care of thousands of patients.

During a virtual consultation, if a GP deems that a patient needs a face-to-face assessment, they arrange for the patient to be seen. Meanwhile, many cases have been safely managed by virtual consultations, thus preventing countless possible cases of Covid transmission and avoidable deaths.

However, it is clear that demand for GP services presently exceeds capacity. This is not the fault of our doctors, and we continue to appeal to our leaders for further support for our patients. Blaming GPs for the decimation of our workforce is akin to blaming lorry drivers for the shortage of lorry drivers.

The number of full-time equivalent GPs has fallen by almost 20 percent in recent years. We have far fewer GPs per 1000 people than comparable nations, whilst the scope of our work is increasingly extended without additional funding.

GPs are doing their best to help patients within a broken system during unprecedented times. We are extremely disappointed by the lack of central and governmental support, and we agree that our patients deserve more from our NHS. Although 83 percent of our patients report a “good GP experience” during the pandemic, we wish for this figure to be closer to 100. But with the mounting attacks against our profession led by Ms Pearson and her like-minded colleagues make it hard for us to succeed.

Factual inaccuracies and negative portrayal of GPs in the press erode the trust that is vital in the doctor patient relationship. There is already an increase in physical, verbal and online abuse towards NHS staff and we are extremely concerned about the potential impact such journalism might have on the safety of NHS staff. We call for a formal response and apology from Ms Pearson. In the words of the NHS Five Year Forward View, if General Practice fails the NHS fails.

Dr Jenny Vaughan
Chair – Doctors’ Association UK
Press@dauk.org