Government launches consultation into physician associate name change
The Government is consulting on amending the law to change the name of the ‘physician associate’ role to ‘assistant’.
Based on recommendations from last year’s Leng review into the safety and effectiveness of the role, this proposal would make the ‘assistant’ role a protected title in law, while also creating the same protection for the separate role of ‘registered medical practitioner’.
The consultation, based on the draft General Medical Council Order 2026, said: ‘We are seeking views on the legal implementation of recommendations… which would mean that the titles physician assistant and physician assistant in anaesthesia would be protected in law rather than the current professional titles of physician associate and anaesthesia associate.
‘This means that, once the titles are protected in law, it will become an offence for anyone to use the titles “physician assistant in anaesthesia” or “physician assistant” while practising in the UK without being registered with GMC. The draft order itself uses the new proposed names.’
Creating a ‘protected’ title under this legislation makes it an offence to use it without being registered as such with the GMC.
The consultation proposes that the protection of the new ‘assistant’ titles comes into force six months after the draft order becomes law.
The draft order also amends the law so that ‘registered medical practitioner’ becomes a protected title, alongside already-protected titles ‘general practitioner’, ‘physician’, ‘doctor of medicine’, and ‘surgeon’.
The BMA has twice unsuccessfully challenged the GMC’s use of the term ‘medical professionals’ to describe PAs. Last April, the High Court dismissed the union’s judicial review claim over the matter, and last month the Court of Appeal agreed that the GMC could continue applying the term to PAs.
The PA name change proposals come as part of a wider consultation on reforming the GMC which includes a recommendation for the regulator to retain its right to appeal fitness-to-practise decisions, in an apparent U-turn which has been criticised by doctors and experts.
Responding, BMA council chair Dr Tom Dolphin said the name change was ‘one positive’ to take from the proposals, which will go ‘some way to ending the confusion for patients’.
‘However, one of the best ways to ensure there is no confusion about who is or isn’t a doctor and to protect patient safety, is to have separate regulators, keeping the GMC as the doctor’s regulator’, he added.
Meanwhile, Stephen Nash, general secretary of PA union United Medical Associate Professionals (UMAPs), said: ‘The DHSC changed this title to ‘associate’ in 2013 because their own department recognised that the term ‘assistant’ would hold the profession back. They are now looking to reverse that decision without any evidence or credible explanation.
‘More than just a title, this is about professional recognition – and the rationale for legislative change cannot be simply because another organisation, such as the BMA, asked for it. We have 95% of our members reporting significant strain to their mental health, which highlights the real human impact of this proposal. Legislating a title that implies subordination and undermines professional recognition is deeply concerning.’
Since the publication of the Leng Review last summer there has been a decline in PAs hired in general practice via the Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme, from 1,099 (FTE) in July to 997 (FTE) in February this year.
The Government’s consultation, open until 23 June, seeks views from medical professionals and the public on implementing recommendations from the Leng review as well as the Mann review into how healthcare regulators handle antisemitism and other forms of racism.
The Government’s response to the Mann review’s recommendations includes a proposal for the GMC to retain its existing right to appeal decisions made by the MPTS.
It also grants further powers to the Professional Standards Authority (PSA) – the body that oversees all healthcare regulators – to challenge interim MPTS decisions, with the GMC receiving equivalent powers.
Currently, the GMC appeals in cases where it feels a Medical Practitioners Tribunal sanction of a doctor has not sufficiently protected the public, but it was expected that long-awaited new legislation would strip the regulator of this right this year.
The U-turn has been criticised by doctors and experts, who have described the new proposals as ‘profoundly concerning’ and ‘a missed opportunity’ for wider reform.
Related Articles
READERS' COMMENTS [11]
Please note, only GPs are permitted to add comments to articles
Noctors?
Usually I agree with the BMA about most things but I think it is demeaning to PAs to call them ‘assistants’ as they are qualified health care practitioners.
They are called Physician Assistants across the world including in the USA where the UK model was drawn from. It is more about patients knowing the difference to me. You have associate specialist who is a doctor yet another healthcare professional with associate is not…
True but then with physician assistant that could get confused with clinical assistant which is a medical doctor also. I just think calling someone an assistant is a little belittling. Maybe clinical assistants should also be called clinical associates?
No, they are not qualified healthcare practitioners, in the eyes of most members of the public, and this is where this debate should focus, onto whethere is confusion, accidental or deliberate, in th eattempt to name them so similarly to Medical Practitioners as to cause confusion amongst the public, and a number of reports of them NOT identifying to patients that they are not doctors, encouraging patients to believe that they are doctors, and specifically Associates, which bears a meaning of equivalence in the eyes of the public which is not justified, especially when the regulations indicate these staff members need to continue to be directly supervised – and again this is often not happening as it should be.
It’s not about feelings, this is about safety and clarity to patients and the public.
This is about bullying and scapegoating colleagues to make doctors feel they are special and the only health professionals who can see any patient( privately so more money). I and all doctors experienced enough know this is not true. The irony is yet again PAs and nurses will be the health professionals caring for patients whilst doctors are on strike soon whilst many doctors will be paid exorbitant locum fees to cover their own strikes. I think the public know now doctors don’t want an NHS. I am growing ashamed of my profession.
they have far less training and knowledge and are far less able to manage complexity and poly pharmacy as they have minimal pharmacological training. There is much confusion amongst patients as to who they are seeing and they have a right to know who they have seen and request a review by someone with more knowledge and training if they feel it is required. For the GPs here gas lighting us that these allied roles have equivalent knowledge and ability please tell the allied roles if they want to be recognised as a doctor and work like a doctor there is a training routine for that. It is called medical school and post graduate medical training. I think they do fast rack courses for student who have some prior healthcare knowledge.
Gaslighting: persistent psychological efforts to diminish and emotionally abuse…I think that sums up the behaviour of BMA to PAs. They didn’t want to be doctors (ust like nurses didn’t too). They want to help the NHS and have been doing so for 20 years. They have never been on strike and Professor Leng despite trying really really hard not to found them ‘ not unsafe’…that is safe. How safe are patients when doctors are on strike btw?
It makes much more sense to use the same terminology that is used in other countries. I agree with Louise Gleeson it removes confusion with the group of Doctors called ‘Associate Specialists’ . Also PAs can’t see undifferentiated patients and they require overarching supervision. Their role IS to assist that of a Dr, even if in some instances they are working independently within specified parameters.
Just to add this is not about belittling the role or capabilities of a PA , whom I agree can be a very valuable part of the clinical team, it’s about clarity. I have personally been seen by PAs as a patient, and some were excellent – very thorough, great communication.