Doctors plan to report GMC to its own regulator over lack of PA scope of practice

A group of doctors is planning to report the GMC to its own regulator over its decision not to set a scope of practice for physician associates (PAs).

Anaesthetists United (AU), a group of trainees, consultants and SAS anaesthetists from all over the UK, brought on a legal case against the GMC over the same issue last year, but this was dismissed on all grounds in September.

Now the group said that it has looked into the possibility of taking the case to the Court of Appeal, but decided not to do so as it ‘cannot manage it financially’.

However, its lawyers are now in the process of ‘preparing a dossier of material gathered during the court case’ to send to the GMC’s own regulator, the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care (PSA).

In a statement, the group said the lawyers will ask the PSA to ‘critically examine’ whether the GMC’s approach to regulating PAs is ‘fit for purpose’.

It added: ‘A PSA complaint would be a different task to pursuing our legal challenge. It would involve testing the GMC’s approach to PA regulation against the PSA’s own standards, rather than against public law.

‘It will be held behind closed doors with no hearing, though we will ask the PSA to meet with us.’

The PSA oversees the work of UK health and social care regulators and accredited registers of healthcare practitioners, including the GMC.

They use their Standards of Good Regulation as the basis of regulator reviews, and each year they check how well each regulator is meeting them, and publish their findings in a performance review report, with the most recent one for the GMC published in December.

Last year’s court case pursued by AU was brought on to highlight ‘serious concerns’ about setting a scope of practice and supervision of PAs and anaesthesia associates (AAs) and was also supported by the BMA, while the Doctors’ Association UK donated £30,000 to the group’s fundraising campaign. 

It was aiming to achieve ‘clear and enforceable guidance’ setting out what PAs and AAs ‘can and cannot do’, and argued that the GMC has a statutory duty to set those standards. 

However, it was dismissed on all grounds, as the High Court judge said she was ‘satisfied’ that the GMC’s exercise of its role as regulator of associates ‘was coherent and rational’.

The AU statement added: ‘Our lawyers worked incredibly hard on our original case but in the end we did not crowdfund enough money to meet their fees.

‘Asking them to do this additional work will need more cash. We are keeping our Crowdjustice open and hope we can raise enough to see this through. We do not yet know the exact costs involved.’

The GMC told Pulse that its position on the judicial review has already been set out in a statement and that the regulator has continued to meet all 18 Standards of Good Regulation following the annual independent performance review by the PSA last year.

The PSA told Pulse they have noted AU’s intention to get in touch about their concerns.

A spokesperson said: ‘We recently published our latest performance review report for the GMC. You can find out more about what we said in our statement as well as the full report itself.

‘We have noted Anaesthetists United’s intention to get in touch with us about their concerns. We will consider their submission as part of our usual process for reviewing regulators and, if they wish, would be happy to meet with them to understand their concerns.’

In the summer, the BMA threatened the GMC with new legal action over the regulator’s use of the term ‘medical professionals’ to cover both physician assistants and doctors, following the Government-commissioned review into the role by Professor Gillian Leng. 

Speaking at Pulse LIVE Birmingham in June, Professor Leng told GP attendees that her research had shown that PAs were introduced to the NHS ‘without clear vision’.