Look at this smear on the GP's leader by Oliver Wright in the Independent. Just look at it.

- Edit
- Delete
- Tags
- Autopost
Look at this smear on the GP's leader by Oliver Wright in the Independent. Just look at it.

Today in the Independent there is a rather unpleasant personal smear piece on the head of the Royal College of GPs by Oliver Wright, the Independent’s Whitehall Correspondent. It uses anonymous critics, calls the GP’s leader “Ms” but other doctors “Dr”, and its central argument is upside down. This is very odd. Here are a few thoughts while I eat my sandwich.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/why-health-bills-biggest-critic-has-a-lot-to-lose-from-reforms-6660994.html
1. Oliver Wright argues that the head of the RCGP would personally profit from obstructing the bill, because she is a senior member of an entrepreneurial GP practice. This logic is entirely on its head. GP practices have been set up by successive governments to run as small businesses. As I’ve explained before at length, as a senior member of a GP practice, Clare Gerada would actively personally profit from the bill passing, not failing. Oliver Wright’s piece itself (bizarrely) even mentions this in the closing paragraphs. He gives no evidence for his claim that she would profit from obstructing the bill. Everything suggests she would lose out. The central argument of this smear is weirdly upside-down.
2. Why does Oliver Wright use “Ms Gerada”, in a very personal smear on one of the country’s most distinguished female doctors, but “Dr David Hurley” for another doctor in the same piece? It’s not just once: to Oliver Wright Dr Gerada is “Ms Gerada” “Ms Gerada’s position”, “on behalf of Ms Gerada”. Unlike most others, medicine is now a majority female profession. From inside this comparative utopia, selectively calling the GP’s leader “Ms” and while calling a male doctor “Dr” in the same piece feels like a repeated choice of odd wording in search of a good explanation. In a smear.
3. The piece uses anonymous sources to criticise Dr Gerada. I’m sure there is often a justification for anonymity in journalism, but it seems to me that when people are making personal allegations of impropriety against one individual, and using the platform of a national newspaper to attack that one individual, the bar for anonymity should be set fairly high. Presumably the traditions for Whitehall correspondents are different to those of other corners. To me this just looks incredibly ugly.
I suppose that when the NHS bill is failing, denounced by the BMA, BMJ, HSJ, Nursing Times, Royal College of GPs (who stand to gain power from the bill passing), and so many more, we might expect there to be some cloak and daggers work, some personal smears, and anonymous sources.
What surprises me, here, is simply the clumsiness.
I’ve no doubt that Oliver Wright will defend his piece to the hilt. So what I suggest, in all seriousness, is that you take this at face value: look at his piece. Remember that this confused personal attack, with anonymous sources, on “Ms” Gerada, was the work of Oliver Wright, and that he stands by it. Look at this piece by Oliver Wright. Just look at it.

Update 17:30

Oliver Wright's piece has been silently edited at the Independent website to remove the apparently sexist language and replace Ms with Dr. This silent change is not acknowledged on the page. I think that's problematic, as it was one of many indicators of the intent behind this personal smear piece. I have archived the original below in the comments in case of further changes.

Meanwhile on twitter Oliver Wright says "For the record the tories had nothing to do with it" but in his piece he says "senior Government sources have been keen to point out what they say is.." etc.

To be absolutely clear, I do not think this is a substantive smear. More than anything, I think, as a smear, it's clumsy: allegations of financial self-interest without evidence, sexist language, anonymous sources, and it undoes its central argument in the closing paragraphs. This is a smear that undermines its own efforts, which is why it's so interesting. The lasting reputational damage from a piece of writing like this will mostly fall on Oliver Wright, which is why I say: look at it.
- 8 February 2012
- Views
- Permalink
- Tweet
4 months ago vja0810 (Twitter) responded:

I have been told that every single Special Advisor in government is now either an ex-journalist, or is married to a journalist. This is how they are currently managing their communications and media - keep your sources close, and your potential critics even closer. So even the 'lefty' media are failing to follow up any of the obvious lines of criticism and just toeing the line.

4 months ago thomaswilliams (Twitter) responded:

The New York Times has good, published, guidelines on anonymity http://www.nytco.com/company/business_units/sources.html which other newspapers would do well to follow.
It includes:
We do not grant anonymity to people who use it as cover for a personal or partisan attack. If pejorative opinions are worth reporting and cannot be specifically attributed, they may be paraphrased or described after thorough discussion between writer and editor. The vivid language of direct quotation confers an unfair advantage on a speaker or writer who hides behind the newspaper, and turns of phrase are valueless to a reader who cannot assess the source.

4 months ago boggits (Twitter) responded:

In defence of poor copywriting, the use of Ms could be being used (incorrectly) to acknowledge her status as a FRCP (if she was a FRCS then it would have been the correct form of address)

4 months ago KaiserOfCrisps (Twitter) responded:

Appalling piece by the Government's useful idiot Oliver Wright. The Independent's really going downhill - first Johann Hari's plagiarism, and now Wright's blatant government propaganda. If the Indie has any shred of integrity, they should pull the article and send Wright on the same journalism retraining course his colleague Hari went on.

4 months ago Ben Goldacre responded:

Oliver Wright's piece has now been silently changed to remove the sexist language. Here is a copy.
One of the most vociferous critics of the Government's health reforms has a financial interest in a partnership of GPs that could lose out if private providers are given greater freedom to compete with doctors offering NHS services.
Clare Gerada, the head of the Royal College of GPs (RCGP), has been at the forefront of opposition to the Government's controversial Health Bill, which she says will open up the NHS to multiple private organisations leading to a "fragmented, expensive and bureaucratic" health service.
But Ms Gerada is also one of four partners in the Hurley Group – a rapidly expanding chain of London GP surgeries and clinics that now has 13 practices, 250 employees and provides a host of NHS services across the capital.
The group could face substantial competition from private providers if they are allowed to compete equally to provide NHS services.
There is no suggestion that the Hurley Group would lose NHS contracts in the face of greater competition, or that they do not provide effective and reasonably priced services. But senior Government sources have been keen to point out what they say is the irony of Ms Gerada's position. Some of her colleagues within the Royal College have also questioned whether she is "practising what she preaches" against competition but are reluctant to criticise her openly.
"She seems to be using her role as chair of the college in a very political way in opposing the Bill," said one. "That seems odd to some of us as she must have made a fortune through the expansion of the Hurley Group." In a statement on behalf of Ms Gerada the Hurley Group say they support competition, in an appropriate setting, but disagree with forcing competition, for the sake of it, into all parts of the NHS. Under the present rules, private companies cannot normally compete to provide NHS services. But GP partnerships – who are themselves private providers of services that can make significant profits from the NHS – can.
Over the past five years the Hurley Group has worked under the current system to expand from one surgery in Kennington to run practices and walk-in centres across London. Apart from Ms Gerada and her three other partners, the other employees of Hurley are salaried. A fully qualified GP there receives a starting salary of £72,600. While this is above the national average for salaried GPs, it is still below the £100,000 average earned by partner GPs.
Hurley has also caused controversy by taking over a service in south London which other local GPs claimed could fragment the local NHS and damage continuity of care – similar criticisms that Ms Gerada has been making about the Government's reforms.
Hurley Group won the contract to take over the urgent care centre at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Greenwich following a tendering decision by NHS South East London at the end of last year. But the move sparked opposition from local practices which said patients had not been adequately consulted, and that the new centre would threaten the viability of local out-of-hours services.
Dr David Wheeler, a GP in Greenwich who works out-of-hours shifts, told the medical magazine Pulse at the time that there was a "feeling of dismay" among local GPs at the decision: "It's a paradox that the chair of the college is all for collaboration and federating, but is also a partner at the Hurley Group, which is swooping in and taking over in areas where it normally has no business."
In a statement, the Hurley Group, on behalf of Ms Gerada, said it did not think it would lose out from the NHS reforms: "In competition with a range of providers [the Hurley Group have] taken over failing or new practices, supported and developed them and kept them open for patients. In a competitive, denationalised NHS the Hurley Group, with its successful track record, may stand to gain from a market free-for-all. So it is important to put that in the context of The RCGP's opposition to the Bill.
"The best way to deliver care is through high-quality, evidence-based integrated services delivered in partnership with patients and public. Competition, in the appropriate setting, can support this. However, the prospect of forcing competition, for the sake of it, into all parts of the NHS is not. This is a view shared by members of the RCGP, the BMA, the RCN, the RCM and other health groups and the majority of workers and organisations within the family of the NHS."
The Hurley Group: What it runs
8 GP practices spread across South London. Five years ago they ran a single GP surgery in Kennington. Many of the practices have on-site pharmacy services run by the group.
* A contract to run the urgent care centre at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Greenwich.
* A contract with the Department of Health to provide confidential health consultations and services for doctors and dentists in London.
* A substance misuse service for homeless patients in Westminster and a GP service to those in homeless shelters and asylum seekers in East London.
4 NHS Walk in centres (some included within surgeries) including a minor Injury Unit with X-ray, scans and blood tests on site. Many of their surgeries have expanded to carry out diagnostic tests such as X-ray and ultrasound normally provided in hospitals. They also have visiting hospital consultants in the areas of gastroenterology and cardiology.
* Mental Health professionals in practices, so patients can access advice and support for mental health issues at any of the surgeries.
* An open access, self-referral physiotherapy service run out of its Docklands Practice.
140 bed hostel for refugees and asylum seekers in south London.

4 months ago colinforster responded:

Dr Gerada's Group has amassed 8 GP practices across South London plus numerous other businesses. This was done in the existing regime. Presumably they intend to continue to expand. It is plausible that an increase in competition, which the Bill seeks to encourage, could adversely affect these plans. "Monopoly seeks to stifle competition shock!"

4 months ago colinforster responded:

... the quote in the piece which says the Group could benefit from the Bill comes from the Group itself!

4 months ago RFrisbee (Twitter) responded:

Other than the use of 'Ms' in place of 'Dr', I'm not really getting outraged by this piece.
What I'm actually thinking after reading it is that it would be nice to be able to go to a doctor and not have to worry that his or her medical advice may be skewed by profit motive. It's bad enough being asked by my dentist how happy I am with my teeth on a scale of one to ten*, without also having to undergo a battle of wits with my GP when I'm ill to try to figure out if he is advising me to keep my treatment 'in-house' for his benefit rather than mine.
*8.

4 months ago capitalgp responded:

I think Dr Gerada's stance on the bill has been excellent.
I think that the article smells like a hatchet job.
I am not convinced that the Bill passing would be worse for the Hurley group, but it may be.
What I know is that the Hurley group represents all that is bad in general practice in the UK. I have worked as a locum GP for them many times as well as many similar groups. They are creating a huge network of GP practices run by locums, the partner's motivation, whatever the lofty claims I have personally heard from their lips, is money. For a 10min consultation, a locum could make 6 pounds (I would agree with anyone who felt GPs were paid to much by the way), whilst the Hurley group (branded NHS) may get paid 30-40pounds.
They may well turn around failing practices and improve services to an under served local population in the short term, but check these same practices out one or two years later and they are mainly staffed by locums (like me on occasion)and the staff (whether reception staff, nurses or doctors) are terribly dissatisfied with the working conditions. The staffing levels are often poor and daily text messages get sent to locum Doctors all over London- "Dr needed in xxxxx today, start immediately, til 8pm".
The future is gloomy for GPs and their patients and unfortunately it is GPs that are responsible. So when I see the hypocritical way Dr Gerada is defending the NHS whilst making UK primary care profit driven and souless, leading to a marked worsening for patients in the long run, I (like most GPs) feel a bit angry.
There are many problems with primary care, Dr Clare Gerada (Chair of the Royal College of GPs) represents something that epitomizes all of them.
PS- I am not a disgruntled former employer, I will probably work again for them, then again, pretty soon, I won't have much choice.

4 months ago onegpprotest (Twitter) responded:

Many thanks for your post. I read the article this morning and was perplexed by the 'Ms', and the poor logic, and the anonymous sources (of course the Government are going to provide whatever they can to undermine Clare Gerada: she is a thorn in their side).
But the Independent has used this slur/smear in 2 other articles today, one the headline article in the print paper http://ind.pn/zkibSU and the other in the main leader today http://ind.pn/yZTJTo
Illigitimi non carborundum

4 months ago sourceforthegoose responded:

What is known about Oliver Wright.Would he like the spotlight turned on him?

4 months ago squee-d liked this post.

3 months ago 13srmg responded:

CapitalGP raises interesting points about GP monopolies. The bill has some good points and seeking to widen GP participation with support may not be a bad thing. There are too many vested interests in the current "NHS" . There is a danger that the current point scoring and hysteria does not truly help patients or the profession in the longer term (thinking in terns of the next 50 years - when the world economy is likely to be very different )

about 1 month ago niaperjoibe1987 responded:

It can't have effect in fact, that is exactly what I suppose.
lisamarieelliott
Ben Goldacre's Space

I like stats. I'm a doctor. I write about dodgy scientific claims in my spare time.
This isn't my main blog. Find me here:
Blog:
www.badscience.net/
Book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Science-Ben-Goldacre/dp/000728487X/?tag=bs0b-21
Tweet:
www.twitter.com/bengoldacre
TED talk:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science.html

bengoldacre - secondary blog

Look at this smear on the GP's leader by Oliver Wright in the Independent. Just look at it.

Ben Goldacre's Space

About Ben Goldacre

Archive

Follow Me