Physician associates (PAs) will get a seven-digit reference number with an alphabetical prefix in order to distinguish them from doctors, the GMC has said.
There will be no change to doctors’ GMC reference numbers which will remain a seven-digit number without a prefix.
And the Government has said it has no intention to change the title of PAs to avoid patient confusion.
Thousands of doctors recently signed a letter of concern to the GMC, organised by the Doctors’ Association UK (DAUK) which expressed ‘grave concerns’ about the upcoming regulation.
Their letter said the plan to introduce a seven-digit registration number for PAs and anaesthesia associates (AAs), like the numbers issued to registered doctors, would introduce ‘unnecessary confusion’ and called for ‘distinct GMC numbers’ to be given to these groups.
Acknowledging the concern, GMC chief executive Charlie Massey said: ‘Over recent weeks we have been having discussions with stakeholders about the reference number that PAs and AAs will receive when they register with us.
‘I know this issue has been the focus of some concern, and it is important that we get this right.
He said the GMC ‘considered a range of options, including looking at what other multi-professional regulators do’ and ‘explored implications for other organisations that use GMC reference numbers too, such as employers and the health services more generally’.
‘Once regulation begins and PAs and AAs gain registration with us, they will receive a seven-digit GMC reference number with a short alphabetical prefix,’ he concluded.
The GMC ‘finalise the exact format of these reference numbers in discussion with stakeholders to ensure that we’re able to identify and minimise any potential impact on others’ systems and processes,’ he added.
The Doctors’ Association UK (DAUK) said that the reference number proposal ‘is a start, but it doesn’t differentiate the expertise doctors bring to patient care from that of PAs and AAs’.
DAUK chair Dr Matt Kneale expressed concern about the ‘blurring of lines’ between doctors and non-doctor roles, calling into question the suitability of the GMC as the regulator for medical associate professions (MAPs).
He said: ‘We intend to bring to the GMC’s attention the unprecedented concern among doctors about the imminent legislation.
‘Patient safety must be the priority, and we believe that the GMC regulating MAPs could compromise that safety.’
Legislation to allow the GMC to regulate the roles was laid before Parliament via affirmative statutory instruments last week and the regulations are expected to come into force at the end of 2024.
The GMC will set standards of practice, education and training, and operate fitness to practice procedures, ensuring that PAs and AAs ‘have the same levels of regulatory oversight and accountability as doctors and other regulated healthcare professionals’.
The legislation follows a consultation which had also suggested PAs could get prescribing rights in order to relieve pressure on GPs.
However, there are no plans to change the title of their roles to avoid patients’ confusion, as had been proposed by the BMA.
The union had called on the Government to change the names to their ‘original professional titles’ from before 2014 – ‘Physician Assistant’ and ‘Physician Assistant (Anaesthesia)’.
However ministers are of the opinion that it is ‘clear that PAs and AAs are not doctors’.
Responding to a written question from a Labour Party MP earlier this week, health minister Andrew Stephenson said: ‘There are no plans to change the title of either role. The [DHSC] is clear that PAs and AAs are not doctors. The role of medical associates is to work with and support doctors, not to replace them.’
However, he did add that the DHSC ‘shares’ the BMA’s ‘view that all healthcare professionals must introduce themselves and explain their role to patients’.
‘This includes physician associates (PAs) and anaesthesia associates (AAs).’
Last week a BMA survey found that he majority of doctors believe that the way PAs work ‘present a significant risk to patient safety’.
READERS' COMMENTS [13]
Please note, only GPs are permitted to add comments to articles
Not doctors, they should be regulated by the Health and Care Professionals body. Regulation by a medical body only adds to the confusion.
The GMC is no longer fit for purpose as it is not listening to the doctors. So much for their promises of staying in touch with the grassroots and reflecting.
PAs are “Allied Health Professionals” and should be under the Health Care Professions Council not the GMC. The are doing this to cause confusion among patients and pass the bug to existing doctors.
The key is in the name.
General MEDICAL Council.
The mere fact that they are registered and regulated by such a body demeans us all.
Outside their consulting room it should be displayed clearly John smith physician associate and they must introduce themselves as PA. Gmc should not be involved in giving them registration as most of general public don’t understand the difference and they should be registered elsewhere. And should have appraisals and revalidation.
Apparently, I am now a G.P. Associate——-as opposed to a Locum G.P.———–no alphabetical prefix
Likewise, could the MPs parliamentary standards committee look at also regulating the 10,000s of parish councillors (PCs) because one of my local one’s a right pain in the a**e…
Can the GMC now confirm all the mistakes that are made by PAs will fall onto the PAs – and not the GPs or consultant or even worse poor juniour doctor who is supervising them? Currently all problems caused by them are the responsibility of someone else and they are the ones in firing line up against the GMC, NHSE, CQC, Healthwatch, the lawyers and all and sundry. Most employers don’t appear to be aware of that either. Employ at your peril.
If you think that the somewhat Cushinoid Mr Massey, bearing a somewhat Rictus Sardonicus, thinks anything about what you think, you’ve got another think coming.
do they pay the same GMC fee as Drs?, if not who is covering the cost
They are not ‘Physician Associates’ or Associate Physicians, since they are not Physicians at all.
It is not necessary for Government to chnage the name:
Time for some real Clinical Governance from Doctors (and their leaders?)
All ‘Physician’s Assistants’ work under direct supervision and responsibility fo a Senior Doctor, so the supervising Senior Doctor can, and should if following GMC guidance properly, direct that the PA introduce themselves to the patient as an Assistant, not a Physician or Associate. It is up to the Doctors to do this.
Junior Doctors do not have to worry about taking any responsibility for PA’s actions or negligence, since Junior Doctors do not supervise PAs, all PAs and Junior Doctors are supervised by a responsible senior Doctor, usually the Consultant or Principal GP, who is the only one responsible for them, but can direct what they do, and is responsible for directing the PA to make it clear to the patient that they are not a Doctor, but an Assistant, Orderly (where that applies), or Nurse.
No worries about the GMC fees either – if they work in hospital, the NHS pays, and if they work for a gP, the GP Practice pays through their gross expenses – ie the GPs pay for the PAs GMC fees as well as their own.
GMC processes for doctors have been being streamlined for decades, so should be relatively cheal now.
All new GMC processes and guidance for pAs will be brand new, requiring considerable new expense, so a PA registration fee one would expect to be a lot higher than the fee for a Doctor, to account for al lthe extra expense and work being done by GMC that is new, one-off, or disproportionate to number of new PA-registrants.
I do wonder about all the Doctors who have been training these PAs, and if they thought about all this before agreeing to be responsible for sorting it out???? (RCP????)
Two of the most impressive clinicians I’ve mentored in recent times have been a PA and a Nurse Practitioner. Two of the most dangerous medics I’ve met in recent times have been GP trainees. One was so bad I informally asked the GMC to check their certificates (they were an IMG, incidentally). They didn’t want to know…
We might be funding the PA’s registration fee. How do they separate them?
I assume the GMC employees private medical insurance as advertised on their website if still continuing is increasing each year so I expect in my opinion, the number one in the GMC consideration of taking this new PA role regulation is ‘ How else are our private medical insurance fees and other benefits going to be paid?’