A healthcare defence organisation has reported that general practitioners are receiving AI-generated complaint documents running to around 20 pages in length. The Medical Protection Society — a body that offers legal and indemnity guidance to health professionals — has raised concerns that AI-generated correspondence, when it becomes needlessly complex, places additional demands on GP time.
Among close to 160 UK practice managers who took part in a survey, only one in fourteen reported having no experience of an AI-generated complaint reaching their desk. Roughly 45 per cent of respondents reported that patient complaints composed with AI assistance are adding to existing workload burdens and undermining the morale and wellbeing of staff.
The MPS deputy medical director, Dr Sarah Townley, noted that AI tools could help patients raise concerns more effectively, particularly those who face obstacles to written communication such as limited confidence, language differences, or health-related difficulties. Where these concerns are absent, the drafting of written content still draws on notably less time when AI tools handle the work.
The MPS has flagged a growing number of GP practice staff turning to the organisation for help with AI-generated complaints, a pattern that appears to be placing added strain on both practice teams' daily workloads and their broader wellbeing. Some letters stretch to 20 pages or beyond. Across the board, these submissions tend toward complexity, with detailed legal reasoning that is at times of uncertain validity, while traces of AI-generated phrasing and characteristic patterns frequently persist throughout.
Handling complaints submitted through AI-generated correspondence is reported to place a heavier processing burden on members, given that the underlying concerns can prove harder to interpret, though each patient complaint is said to receive careful individual attention. Resources that might otherwise go toward direct patient care are drawn into these processes, with the potential to affect treatment outcomes.
In one case reported by the MPS, a follow-up letter from a patient arrived within minutes of a member working through a response with the organisation's support, bringing with it a set of concerns that had not featured in the original complaint. Those involved reportedly described a state of disorientation and displeasure at the turn of events.
Professor Victoria Tzortziou Brown, president of the Royal College of GPs, noted that the ease of filing a complaint within seconds may be lowering the bar for what prompts a formal grievance and steering patients toward lodging concerns in the heat of the moment rather than pursuing less formal channels. She nonetheless affirmed that patients hold the right to raise concerns about their care and that the complaints process can serve a meaningful function in driving accountability, learning, and service improvement. GP practices are expected to handle complaints through established procedures, investigating concerns and providing responses accordingly, she noted.
Proponents note that technology — AI among it — holds potential to lower barriers for patients wishing to raise concerns, yet researchers and practitioners have also pointed to the possibility that such tools could generate submissions that run longer than necessary, carry undue complexity, or reflect factual errors. Complaints drafted with AI assistance can carry formal legal phrasing that goes beyond what the underlying concern warrants, placing a heavier interpretive and administrative burden on GPs and the wider support teams handling them.
Grasping the nature of a patient's concerns — what led to them and what options exist for resolution — forms the foundation of effective care, according to the MPS. Beyond the pressures of managing their own patient lists, GPs find themselves fielding complaints rooted in bottlenecks elsewhere in the health system — hospital waiting times, gaps in community services — problems that lie well outside any individual practice's reach. When complaints arrive in forms that are intricate or hostile, the burden on already stretched teams can mount noticeably, with staff wellbeing among the factors affected.
Guidance for patients on drafting complaints using artificial intelligence has been published by the Public Service Ombudsman, whose accompanying statement noted that complaints procedures must preserve thorough human judgement, with each concern weighed on its own merits in a manner that is both fair and proportionate. The document notes that plain, accessible language tends to serve readers more effectively than dense formal writing, and that AI providers retain the ability to draw on user data for training purposes, potentially processing that information in jurisdictions outside the user's own country. The resource further advises patients to avoid using AI tools to incorporate legal reasoning, adopt formal legal terminology, or reference specific legislation as a way of lending their complaint greater authority.
