Some UK newspapers declared a “war” on GPs because of their use of remote consultations, it was alleged today.

Professor Trish Greenhalgh, of Oxford University, said some depicted remote GP consultations negatively and this resulted in politically driven campaigns for a return to face-to-face care. However, these campaigns ignored the challenges and workforce shortages that GP practices face, she says, writing in the British Journal of General Practice. Professor Greenhalgh said while GPs want to see patients for face-to-face appointments, they would also like newspapers to focus on how the current shortage of in-person GP appointments is caused by a “vast mismatch between supply and demand”.

The study involved a thematic analysis of national newspaper articles about remote GP consultations covering the periods 13–26 May 2021, following an NHS England letter, and 14–27 October 2021, following a government-backed directive, both of which stipulated a return to in-person consulting. Through LexisNexis 25 articles were identified that reported on the letter and 75 reported on the government directive.

Analysis found newspaper coverage of remote consulting was negative, with right-leaning press particularly pushing for in-person consultations and characterising remote care as creating access barriers and compromising safety. Two newspapers also led national campaigns to put pressure on the government to insist GPs offer in-person consultations.

Prof Greenhalgh said although remote consultations were positively reported in the early days of the pandemic, this technology was demonised just a year later, being depicted as distancing the patient from their GP.

“These simplistic, polarised narratives around modes of consulting were not helped by a commodification of clinical care (patients were depicted as customers who had a right to see the GP in person),” she writes. “The reality of clinical diagnosis and management is, of course, far more nuanced, with multiple interacting influences contributing to safe and effective clinical care and the balancing of good care and patient satisfaction.”

GPs, GP representatives, and some journalists in the left-leaning press criticised policy changes for neglecting general practice pressures, including high workloads and stress levels, as well as resource and staffing issues, she says.

“Throughout 2021 remote consulting became increasingly contentious, creating tensions between government ministers, the media, GPs, and patients,” she writes. “A significant rise in anti-GP rhetoric was observed in the current study, with some journalists using remote consulting as a platform to criticise GPs for not fulfilling their professional duties, and thus further fuelling the GP crisis. Remote consultations have become associated in the media with poor practice. Some newspapers were actively leading the ‘war’ on general practice rather than merely reporting on it. Proactive dialogue between practitioners and the media might help minimise polarisation and improve perceptions around general practice.”