PA union’s discrimination claims against GP practices could amount to £30m
Exclusive GP practices could face total combined damages of £30m from discrimination claims initiated by a physician associates (PA) union, Pulse has learned.
Earlier this year, United Medical Associate Professionals (UMAPs) said it was preparing hundreds of individual employment claims against GP practices who were affected by the ‘discriminatory’ scope guidance from the BMA and the RCGP.
Lawyers for United Medical Associate Professionals (UMAPs) told Pulse they have not revised initial estimates of damages since litigation began earlier this year.
Filing the first indirect discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010 against individual practices, law firm Shakespeare Martineau said total combined damages ‘could be as high as £30m’
The calculation is based on the ‘more than 300’ PAs the union said were impacted by the changes to the BMA and RCGP scopes of practice last year.
The firm said the figure was based on an estimated £50,000 to £100,000 per claimant.
Meanwhile, Sneha Nainwal, a partner at Shakespeare Martineau, said the proposed changes to PA roles by GP practices following the Leng review ‘could potentially trigger a new wave of tribunal cases against employers who have already implemented the Leng recommendations’.
‘This context underscores why the injunction application was urgent. The subsequent FAQs and amendment to NHS’ original 16 July decision now clarify that employers retain full discretion in how to manage their PA workforce and there is no binding obligation on them to implement the Leng recommendations.
‘NHS has confirmed the decision, and full accountability for that decision, rests squarely with employers – we hope employers will take time to reflect and make considered, well-informed decisions.’
Pulse asked NHS England to comment on this.
Dr Grant Ingrams, chief executive of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland LMC, said: ‘I think UMAPs are blaming the wrong people. PAs were sold a dream, as it were, by the Department of Health and by NHS England, who basically set them up to fail.
‘The changes that were made in 2013 were trying to make out that PAs could plug a hole that they weren’t designed to plug.
‘I feel sorry for the PAs who have come through the system, who’ve been trained and been told you can be an associate and you’re going to get to do this, that and the other, when training doesn’t allow them to do that.
‘Even if they win some individual cases, those organisations will still find a way of removing PAs if its not working for them.
‘In the long term, (UMAPS’ legal action) is not going to benefit their members.’
Professor Kamila Hawthorne, Chair of the Royal College of GPs, told Pulse: ‘We are aware of the litigation and of the speculation about the size of any potential damages, but we will not comment on ongoing legal proceedings.
‘The College’s position, following consultation with members and discussion at our governing Council, is to oppose a role for PAs in general practice. This is due to valid concerns about patient safety and the suitability of the role in a general practice setting.
‘Recognising that there are already PAs working in general practice settings, we have developed guidance on induction, supervision and scope of practice for practices already employing PAs.
‘Our position and our guidance are advisory, and decisions regarding PAs rest with GPs as employers.’
The BMA said: ‘We have been in receipt of a number of employment tribunal claims of which the BMA, as well as individual practices and the RCGP have been named as respondents. A number of these claims were received prior to the Leng recommendations.’
Last week, an NHS England FAQ document appeared to water down ‘immediate actions’ which were issued to GP practices immediately following the publication of the Leng review into PAs.
The document said any changes are contingent on ‘local change management policies’, employment law and discussions with trade unions, which LMC leaders warned could ‘muddy the water’ for a lot of practices.
This week, a Pulse survey found more than a fifth of PCNs have cut the number of PAs they employ in the past year.
Of those, many cited the restrictions on what work PAs can undertake independently as having limited their use in general practice, while others stated that these restrictions mean PAs need too much supervision that practices don’t have the resources to provide.
Pulse has contacted the BMA for comment.
Related Articles
READERS' COMMENTS [6]
Please note, only GPs are permitted to add comments to articles
If they win, presumably an unemployed person with qualifications only in retail sales, and some self study, could claim discrimination because the Gas Board would not employ them as a specialist gas boiler installer or electrician?
Discrimination on the grounds of suitable qualifications is the one type of discrimination that the legal system currently allows happily.
They need to appeal to the Government for the false expectations they were sold by the RCO and DoH, not the GPs who experimented in employing them, with all the additional supervision and teaching those GPs provided.
Anaesthetic Assistants is different, as the environment and circumstances are different. What else in Hospitals, I haven’t a clue, as not involved with, but patients are entitled to expect Doctors to be available in hospitals to care for them.
I agree with David Church – and while it’s very concerning news to be targeting individual practices, it feels vexatious and unlikely to go anywhere. The PAs must feel the threat is completely existential, as if you weren’t already employing them, everyone will be extremely wary to employ a single new PA now.
This was an unhappy experiment and easily forseeable disaster, with inappropriate and short-sighted collusion by the government and self-serving medical college heads, and universities. The end result was a non-evidence-based, money-making and stats-skewing scheme without proper oversight or planning, and no one will be held accountable. Instead this has meant GPs, hospitals and the affected PAs themselves are left picking up the pieces. I do feel sympathy for everyone involved.
Am I being unfairly cynical in thinking that the people that will make money out of this are the lawyers and union reps.?
They will get paid however the court cases play out.
A shame for the PA’s who were dragged into what has become a mess of poorly thought through premises and broken promises.
At least it puts an end to this sorry tale. I love how (as usual) GP partners are thrown under the bus in the last line of any guidance that has to be followed. Make sensible decisions people and don’t expect to be backed up by your government, governing bodies or the RCGP. They only look after themselves, not you. I know you have to pay the GMC to practice medicine, but do you need to be a member of the RCGP and the BMA who will do nothing to protect you? Worth considering….
They should have gone to medical school if they want to do medicine. PA’s were sold a fake dream practising dangerously.
Centralised model of care just doesn’t work anymore. Nothing seems more clear than this.
There is so much individual capability to create a simple but effective model of care locally as everyone has ideas and skills.
All that needs to happen is to decentralise care, to be given the opportunity and trust to manage things as we see fit.
The world would be a different place..