Doctors in general practice are now encountering AI-drafted formal complaints that can stretch to roughly 20 pages per submission, according to a healthcare defence body. The Medical Protection Society (MPS), which provides legal and indemnity support to healthcare professionals, has raised concerns that AI-generated correspondence — when overly complex — places additional strain on GP schedules.
Among roughly 160 UK practice managers who took part in a poll, only one in fourteen reported having no experience of an AI-generated complaint reaching their desk. Forty-five per cent of respondents reported that patient complaints generated through AI tools are adding to existing workload burdens while also taking a toll on staff morale and wellbeing.
MPS has noted a rise in GP practice staff turning to the organisation for help with complaints believed to have been generated by AI, a trend that appears to be placing added pressure on practice teams' day-to-day workload and overall wellbeing. Those written communications can stretch to twenty pages, and occasionally well beyond that.
Across many of these submissions, intricate structures sit alongside detailed but at times unverified legal reasoning, and a notable portion retain the AI tool's characteristic phrasing and guidance patterns. Handling AI-generated correspondence takes up a notable portion of staff time, the association noted, because the underlying patient concerns can be harder to interpret than those expressed in standard written communications. Attention that would otherwise go toward direct patient care appears to be redirected elsewhere, with knock-on effects on the quality of outcomes for those receiving treatment.
The MPS deputy medical director, Dr Sarah Townley, noted that AI tools hold the potential to help patients raise concerns more effectively — particularly those who find written communication harder due to limited confidence, language differences, or health conditions. Even when those friction points are not present, AI tools can trim the time a writer puts into producing text.
After drafting a reply to such a letter alongside an MPS member, a follow-up message arrived from the patient within minutes, introducing fresh concerns that had not featured in the original complaint. Those involved described feeling at a loss and deeply dissatisfied with how matters had unfolded.
The ease with which a complaint can now be filed in a matter of seconds appears to be lowering the bar for what patients choose to raise formally, and may be prompting more people to act in the heat of the moment rather than turning to less formal channels to resolve concerns. Victoria Tzortziou Brown, president of the Royal College of GPs, described patients as holding a recognised right to raise concerns about their care, noting that complaints serve a meaningful function in driving accountability, learning, and service improvement. She went on to note that GP practices treat complaints with due attention and maintain formal procedures for carrying out investigations and providing responses.
Advances in technology, AI among them, have the potential to lower barriers for patients wishing to raise concerns, though questions remain about whether some outputs could be overly verbose, hard to follow, or factually unreliable. Complaints drafted with AI assistance may also carry legal phrasing that goes beyond what the underlying concerns warrant, placing a heavier burden on GPs and their support staff when it comes to parsing and addressing them.
Knowing what troubles a patient, what has already happened, and which actions might address the situation together lay the groundwork for delivering sound medical attention. Referrals reaching GP surgeries now cover a broader range of health concerns than those practices can handle on their own, with a growing portion tied to waiting times in hospital and community-based services that sit outside the remit of any individual surgery. When staff are already stretched thin, handling complaints that are intricate or carry an element of threat adds measurable strain — both in workload and in personal wellbeing.
Guidance for patients on drafting complaints using artificial intelligence has been published by the Public Service Ombudsman, alongside a call for any concerns raised to be assessed through human judgement, handled proportionately, and treated on their own individual merits. The guidance calls for plain, accessible language that conveys what occurred, and it also notes that AI providers retain the right to draw on personal data for system training and to handle that data in jurisdictions outside the user's own country. The resource further advises that patients keep AI-generated complaints free of legal terminology, statutory references, and formal legal phrasing intended to lend the submission an air of official authority.
