Posts Tagged ‘Media coverage’

Media bashing may erode trust in the profession

Healthcare Republic - 24th August 2010 11:07 am

Negative newspaper coverage of GP pay may start to erode public trust in the profession, researchers have warned.

A team from the University of Leeds analysed trends in five national newspapers: The Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Sun and The Times.

They found that after the introduction of the new GMS contract in 2004, there was a ‘sharp rise’ in stories related to GPs’ salaries. Numbers rose from less than 20 articles per year in 2004 to 100 articles per year in 2007.

Writing in Primary Health Care Research and Development, the researchers said that, after 2004, newspaper coverage of GPs became ‘unfavourable’.

Read more at Healthcare Republic.

Hold the front page Katie’s got married again

By Mike Broad - 8th February 2010 10:38 pm

Why do some medical stories get covered in the media and others don’t?

It’s a pertinent question this week as debate rages in the blogosphere about Dr Jane Barton. For the uninitiated, she’s a GP in Gosport who has just been found guilty of serious professional misconduct by the GMC.

Dr Barton prescribed “potentially hazardous” levels of sedatives and painkillers to patients at the Gosport War Memorial Hospital in the 1990s. But, despite being found guilty of putting her patients at risk of premature death during that time, she has not been struck off. Instead she can continue to work under certain conditions, which includes a ban on injecting opiates for three years.

There’s been widespread criticism of the decision. The GMC case followed an inquest last year into 10 deaths that concluded that prescribed drugs had been a factor in five. Furthermore, a number of commentators have questioned why Dr Barton didn’t receive the same level of media attention as Dr Andrew Wakefield or Dr Daniel Ubani, the German GP at the centre of the out-of-hours storm.  

It being the web, conspiracy theories abound. Barton ‘survived’ and received less coverage because she’s white and from the right background. Others, like Ubani, haven’t fared so well because of prejudice and racism. The media is only interested in exposing minorities or outsiders because that’s what their small minded readerships want.

If you don’t like that one, there’s another. Barton ‘got off’ because she has friends and family in high places within the medical establishment. Conversations were held behind closed doors, strings were pulled. The media were scared off by the threat of libel.

Like most conspiracy theories, they’re nonsense. There is a more prosaic explanation. Let’s start with the GMC. The fitness to practise panel was clearly swayed by the outpouring of local support for Dr Barton. Supportive comments from current patients have even appeared on comment boards beneath the case’s coverage in the nationals. Despite her serious failings at the Memorial Hospital in the 90s, she’s clearly a popular GP now.  

The GMC’s adjudication powers are being moved to the totally independent Office of the Health Professions Adjudicator next year, effectively signalling the end of self-regulation. It will be interesting to see whether the OHPA would be similarly influenced - I doubt it.  

Fitness to practise panels make their own decisions, and the GMC itself is clearly not happy about this one. New chief executive Niall Dickson suggested she should have been struck off and has instigated a review. Furthermore, the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence (CHRE), a supra-regulator if you like, is also having a look. Many forget that doctors now face double jeopardy. The CHRE has the power to refer the case to the High Court if it considers the decision to be unduly lenient.

In short, this case isn’t over yet. Norman Lamb, shadow health secretary for the Lib Dems, is calling for a public inquiry into the matter, though I doubt that will be required.

So, on to the next point, why haven’t the media covered it? Or, to be more accurate (because it has been covered by most of the nationals), why hasn’t it been on TV?

It’s simple - it just hasn’t sufficiently interested their journalists. While many health specialists might think it is an important story about competence, supervision and public protection, when you move into the mainstream media there is only so much ‘space’ for health stories. We’ve had a series of big health stories and if journalists, or more importantly their editors, decide that the Wakefield and Ubani cases have stronger news values (such as scope, relevance and topicality for their audiences) then every other health story gets squeezed. In the wider news agenda, the Iraq Inquiry has been squeezing everything.

Journalism is also a dying profession. Numbers have been slashed in recent years, which results in fewer specialists. Most reporters are now generalists, there’s a lot of churnalism, and effective PR has more sway than ever. ‘Good’ stories get missed. Partly because of this the media acts like a pack, if one credible publication or outlet runs a story, the others dive in. It helps to manage their risk.

So, it really doesn’t take a clandestine conspiracy for meaningful stories get pushed to the back of the queue, sadly just the England football captain getting caught with his pants down or Katie Price getting re-married will be enough.

GPs have been hoist by their own petard over pay

By Mike Broad - 30th November 2009 11:30 am

I’ve always liked the phrase ‘hoist by one’s own petard’. Petards were an early bomb, used from around the sixteenth century to blow breaches in gates or walls. And, as you’ll know, it means to be injured by a device you’ve set up that was intended to injure others.

I can’t help but feel it’s applicable to the following story. You might remember earlier this year the Daily Mail going to town on GP salaries. After a series of freedom of information requests it suggested that some GPs were earning huge salaries (up to £380,000 per year) and were being incredibly well paid for providing out-of-hours services (up to £200 per hour).

Surely this couldn’t be true, many of us thought. Someone must defend our maligned GPs and prove to the public what a load of rubbish this is! Up stepped the BMA, and trundled out a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission. Phew…

The complaint, from Dr Laurence Buckman and Dr Nicholas Down, that the article on GPs’ incomes was inaccurate and misleading has just been resolved. The newspaper published an agreed letter from the complainants, the text of which was as follows:

“Your article (4 August) stated that GPs were ‘earning up to £380,000 a year’ and added that they are earning £200 an hour for work ‘they used to do for free’.

“While there is a single GP in North East Essex with a pensionable income amounting to this figure, this is an extreme case and the vast majority of GPs do not earn anywhere near this figure.

“In addition, GPs used to be paid night visit fees under the terms of the Old Contract so these services were never provided for free. That system left many GPs exhausted because they would be seeing patients literally day and night. Under the new contract many GPs do shifts for so-called ‘out-of-hours’ organisations which means they can plan their working hours so that patients aren’t being treated by dangerously over-tired doctors.”

Oh dear. Is it me, or does the letter feel more damning than the original story? So, A. there clearly is a GP earning £380k (380,000 ENGLISH POUNDS!) and B. rates clearly do range up to £200 per hour for out-of-hours work.

I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again: those BMA negotiators on the GP contract were good! But the petard was always going to explode early…

At least the Daily Mail has moved on to some more palatable public sector stooges - for now.