State-backed GP indemnity must cover AI triage failures, LMCs demand

State-backed indemnity should be extended to cover claims associated with failures in AI triage, GP leaders have demanded.

LMC representatives from across England said that the current exposure of GP partners to ‘a wide range’ of personal liabilities is ‘unsustainable’.

At their conference in Manchester last week, they called for indemnity to be extended to cover different types of claims, including from AI triage, vicarious liability and data sharing, and asked the BMA to lobby for greater protection for GP partners.  

Proposing the vote, Gloucestershire LMC’s Dr Rachel Rutter said: ‘Frankly, it feels a bit ridiculous that in 2025 I have to stand here asking for basic protection for GP partners against a wide range of personal liabilities.

‘Let’s be clear, in recent years, GP partners have been operating under imposed contracts with increasing micromanagement of almost every aspect of patient care, yet whilst the Department of Health and NHS England merrily play Whack a Mole with interpretations of our contract and any control we might have previously felt we had over how we provide patient care. Significant personal risk and liability for that care lands squarely on partners’ shoulders.’

She said that AI adds ‘yet another risk’, with GPs repeatedly warning that use of online consultations and AI triage without ‘robust safeguards’ are ‘far from safe’.

She said: ‘No public judgment exists yet, but the risk is clear. If a patient comes to harm, partners could be held accountable personally under current frameworks, especially when the urgent needle may well be hidden amongst an unlimited haystack of online queries.’

Dr Matt Prendergast, from Hampshire LMC, who previously spoke to Pulse issuing a warning to practices about the risks of vicarious liability, said: ‘In our case, [this meant] up to £10m in damages and £2m in legal fees over three years that left me on medication, a partner considering divorce to try and protect her family, and the worsening of relationships with ex partners who contend they weren’t liable due to a partnership agreement.

‘The law doesn’t work fast in these cases, but the anxiety generated is huge and persistent. We risk losing our homes and all our assets.’

GP leaders who spoke against the motion said that it could have ‘unintended consequences’ and that there was a possibility for the Government to think GPs ‘don’t really want partnerships’.

Somerset LMC’s Dr Tim Horlock said: ‘If AI triage is mandated by central government and we cannot choose how to implement it or how to manage it, I agree this should also be indemnified.

‘However, if I as a small business owner make a choice to implement AI technology and it goes wrong, then I probably shouldn’t be indemnified for my individual choice.

‘I think this motion is well meaning, but it sends mixed messages, and my concern is that what government will hear is that we don’t want partnerships because they’re too risky, and what we need is adequate investment to recognise the risks, and that’s what we should be fighting for.’

Responding to the debate, Dr Rutter said: ‘If we don’t vote for this, this leaves partners continuing to take full risk and responsibility for things that are totally outside our control.’

The motion passed in all its parts (see box). The conference saw local GP leaders vote in favour of undated resignations, refusing online access compliance and boycotting neighbourhood teams not led by general practice.

Extending indemnity to cover liability for third-party changes to GP patient records – such as by pharmacists via GP Connect – is also among GPCE’s demands on Government to exit the ongoing dispute.