What makes for a 'Top Doc'? An analysis of UK press portrayals of so-called top doctors

Area of Science:

• Medical Journalism
• Professional Recognition
• Healthcare Leadership

Background:

• The designation 'top doctor' or 'Top Doc' is frequently used in UK press coverage.
• The criteria and characteristics of doctors receiving this designation are not well-defined or understood.
• Understanding these designations is crucial for assessing professional recognition and potential biases in medical reporting.

Purpose of the Study:

• To characterize medical practitioners identified as 'top doctors' in UK media.
• To analyze the demographic and professional attributes of these designated doctors.
• To investigate the lack of objective criteria in media's use of the 'top doctor' label.

Main Methods:

• An observational study analyzing UK news stories featuring 'top doctor' or 'Top Doc' from 2019.
• Data from publicly available databases and national newspaper archives were utilized.
• Cross-referencing with the General Medical Council register for practitioner details like gender, qualification year, and specialty.

Main Results:

• A significant gender disparity was observed, with 80% of 'top doctors' being male.
• These doctors had a median of 31 years of qualification and represented diverse specialties, including 21% general practitioners (GPs).
• Individuals in leadership roles within medical organizations were well-represented; those facing disciplinary actions were disproportionately male and in hospital specialties.

Conclusions:

• The study found no clear definition or objective leadership criteria for the 'top doctor' label in the UK press.
• Journalistic application of the 'top doctor' designation appears subjective.
• A standardized definition, potentially through bodies like the UK Faculty for Medical Leadership and Management, is recommended to enhance objectivity.