BMA launches legal action against GMC over dangerous blurring of lines between doctors and physician associates

[holyshedballs]

bma.org.uk/bma-media-centre...

The BMA is launching legal action against the doctors’ regulator, the General Medical Council, over the way in which it plans to regulate physician and anaesthesia associates, in what the BMA says is the dangerous blurring of lines for patients between highly-skilled and experienced doctors, and assistant roles.

Following recent legislation, the GMC will become the regulator of physician associates (PAs) and anaesthesia associates (AAs) in December 2024.

The BMA has consistently made clear that physician and anaesthesia associates – who complete a two-year course rather than a five-year medical degree – need regulating, but that the GMC is not the right organisation to do this. By choosing the GMC as the regulator for PAs and AAs, the BMA says the Government is undermining and devaluing the medical profession, and confusing patients.

The GMC has been using the term “medical professionals” in its materials to describe all of its future registrants – both doctors and associates. This includes in Good Medical Practice, the key GMC guidance document for doctors, defining the standards of care and behaviour that are expected, which is used as a reference to determine fitness to practise.

The BMA is now launching a judicial review claim against the GMC over its use of this term, which the Association says should only ever be used to refer to qualified doctors.

Alongside the BMA, Anaesthetists United, an independent group of grassroots anaesthetists, are planning separate but complementary legal action, which relates to the lack of any national regulation of scope of practice for PAs and AAs, a vital issue which the GMC has studiously avoided. The BMA is liaising with Anaesthetists United about this and offers it whole-hearted support.

The BMA’s campaigning against the worrying expansion of physician associates and other associate roles comes amid increasing concerns around patient safety, illustrated by several tragic cases, including the death of 30-year-old Emily Chesterton, who died from a blood clot after being repeatedly misdiagnosed by a PA when she thought she had seen a doctor.

BMA council chair Professor Philip Banfield announced the launch of the judicial review claim at the BMA’s Annual Representative Meeting in Belfast this morning (Monday). Commenting, Professor Banfield said:

“PAs are not doctors, and we have seen the tragic consequences of what happens when this is not made clear to patients. Everyone has the right to know who the healthcare professional they are seeing is and what they are qualified to do – and crucially, not to do.

“Doctors are ‘the medical profession’. To describe any other staff as medical professionals not only undermines doctors and the rigorous training journey they have been on, but also confuses patients, who rightly associate the two terms as one and the same.

“The central and solemn responsibility of the GMC is to protect the public from those who are not registered qualified doctors, pretending to be doctors. It has become increasingly clear that broadening the term ‘medical professionals’ to include those without medical degrees has had the effect of making this task far harder, when recent experience has now shown that this represents a dangerous blurring of this critical distinction.

“We have had enough of the Government and NHS leadership eroding our profession, and alongside Anaesthetists United, we are standing up for both doctors and patients to block this ill-thought-through project before it leads to more unintended patient harm. It’s not too late to row back from this uncontrolled and ill-thought out experiment in dumbing down the medical skills and expertise available to patients.”

Dr Richard Marks, co-founder of Anaesthetists United, said:

“Doctors and their patients are united over their opposition to the outgoing government’s plans for replacing doctors with Associates. Taking legal action seems to be the only way forward”

[HandS]

If they are as dangerous as “approved mental health professionals” we should all be very worried……

[holyshedballs in reply to HandS]

If I can have an Advanced Nurse Practitioner instead of a Dr, I'll go for the ANP any day.

I'm very disillusioned with GPs in particular.

[Fruitandnutcase in reply to holyshedballs]

It was an ANP who stretched and reset my wrist when I fractured both bones back in 2020 and he was terrific, every bit as good as a doctor.

I’m not sure ANPs are the same as PAs thought and I dread to think that one day an AA might ‘put me under’.

Anaesthetists train for years to do their job, you only need to watch the anaesthetists at work on those medical programmes on TV to realise the massive level of responsibility they have.

I’m sure this person is a lovely girl but I’m not sure I’d want someone who ‘didn’t have a clue what she wanted to do when she left university’ sending me to sleep.

healthcareers.nhs.uk/explor...

[holyshedballs in reply to Fruitandnutcase]

Most ANPs I've worked with/been seen by are working at the same level as GPs/junior doctors.

My view is that ANPs have a more grounded approach to dealing with people that a lot of doctors lack.

I truly believe that a lot of doctors are somewhat autistic or on the spectrum, amplified by the selection process. in my view that is why they are reluctant to listen to patients or change their views. I know this is simplistic but i don't want to write an essay!!

I'm undecided about PAs. Probably more reflective of my view of GPs. There have been some good ones, but experience is that they are in the minority. Trained and supervised properly, they should have the same interpersonal skills as ANPs

As with most professions there will be good ones and bad ones. The minimum entry requirement for training is a 2:1 degree in a medical/biological field plus experience of working with people.

The big drawback is the paucity of courses and the huge fees even a 2 year course will sting applicants with.

I can see GPs using PAs to do the drudgery of GP work and not supervising them very well.

In a thyroid clinic setting, they could be very useful. Or not, depending on who trained them and supervises them.

[Seaviewandchips in reply to holyshedballs]

GPs already use Clinical Pharmacists for that. In my practice the CP deals with all queries and issues connected with medication - not because of their expertise but to ‘free up’ GPs for ‘doctoring’ and to supervise the practice drugs budget.