RCGP has been equivocal about government’s changes to use of ‘associates’ without medical training to treat patients

The Royal College of GPs has deleted an article that detailed the extent of the lack of supervision by fully-qualified doctors over the actions and decisions of the ‘physician associate’ (PA) roles – who have only two years’ training – whose use the government is expanding.

The use of PAs, which is considered by ninety percent of doctors to be dangerous to patients and confuses many patients, who do not realise that they have not been seen and treated by a fully-qualified medic, is being pushed by the government as a way of ‘downskilling’ the NHS, reducing costs and allowing increased profits for private providers, under the guise of the so-called ‘NHS Workforce Plan’ as part of the ‘Integrated Care Systems’ (ICS) project.

ICS, formerly called ‘Accountable Care Organisations’ (ACOs) after the US system it copied, were renamed after awareness began to spread that ACOs were a system for withholding care from patients and that care providers were incentivised to cut care because they receive a share of the ‘savings’. The system remained the same, but the rebranding disguised the reality.

Now, as Pulse magazine has revealed, the RCGP has deleted a case study that revealed a shocking lack and laxity in the supervision of a PA:

According to the now-deleted case study, held a ‘minimum’ of 27 10-minute appointments each day and asked the on-call doctor to review patients for an ‘urgent opinion’ only ‘once every two to three months’…

…After screenshots circulated on social media, the RCGP removed the case study at the PA’s request…

…The case study previously said: ‘[The PA] has three, ten-minute appointment slots in a row, and at the end of those slots has a ten-minute break for administration and including having prescriptions signed by a GP.’ 

It said supervision is ‘shared’ between GPs working at the practice, and that for ‘non-urgent concerns’ there is a ‘ten minute debrief with an on-call doctor’ which takes place every two to three weeks.

Matt Kneale, co-chair of the Doctors’ Association UK which along with the British Medical Association is opposing the changes, said:

Much of the concern from doctors in recent months has built up from a lack of transparency from Royal Colleges about where they stand on physician associates.

While we are grateful that the RCGP has removed what can, at best, be described as unprofessional practice, we maintain that the College needs to sit down with wider stakeholders on the concerns around PA roles and scope more generally.

The RCGP has voiced ‘concerns’ about the new system, but has not formally opposed it, despite the outrage of doctors and the increasing examples of companies hiring PAs instead of doctors and even making doctors redundant to switch to PAs.

The government’s expansion and renaming of these roles, along with backdoor to regulate them via the General Medical Council (GMC), which regulates doctors – is part of what experts call ‘scope creep’: physician’s assistants and anaesthetist’s assistants, as they were originally called, are valuable roles in carefully limited settings, but NHS England, the government body appointed to run (and run down) the NHS has been using them way beyond their original scope, for example even to perform some types of brain surgery and expecting them to ‘learn on the job’.

The government used a ‘statutory instrument’ to pass these changes, avoiding proper parliamentary scrutiny, but both the Tories and Keir Starmer’s Labour support these and other measures to cheapen the NHS for private involvement and only independent MP Claudia Webbe spoke against them during the brief debate. Green peer Natalie Bennett has tabled a motion in the House of Lords in an attempt to kill the instrument, but without support from the notional ‘opposition’, it is unlikely to succeed.

During the Statutory Instrument debate, Tory former Health Secretary Therese Coffey gushed about the potential for using three associates to anaesthetise patients during operations, with just a single consultant anaesthetist monitoring remotely as an ‘efficiency’.

At least two people have already died avoidably because of misdiagnosis by PAs. Emily Chesterton, 30, who didn’t realise she wasn’t seeing a doctor, was treated for a calf strain when she had a deep vein thrombosis that led to a lethal embolism. Ben Peters, 25, was sent home from A&E with a ‘panic attack’ that was really a serious heart condition.

SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.

If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.

Louise Owusu-Kwarteng: ‘We all Black innit?’ examines relationships between African and African-Caribbean communities in Britain. Historically, these groups have formed coalitions, especially in times of difficulty, for example in resistances against racism. Yet media coverage and academic research studies have highlighted ‘tensions’ between African and Caribbean migrants, especially those arriving from the latter stages of World War 2 and during the 1960s (Mwakigale 2007, Benson 1981). However, this research is limited and focuses specifically on the views and experiences of that particular generation. Very little, if any academic research considers the views and perceptions of second and third generation British born people of African and African-Caribbean descent, although plays, books and, more recently films have begun to explore this issue (see for example, Femi Oguns, Torn (2008) and Bola Agbaje’s Gone Too Far (2013). Therefore, the following research draws on interviews with second and third generation British African and African Caribbean people to assess whether tensions still exist between the two groups, and if so, the potential causes, and if they replicate those of previous generations. Conversely it may be that there has been reconcilement between them, and establishment of new ‘race based coalitions’ (Rogers 2004). Again, the research considers the factors which may have contributed to this.

Kylie Baldwin: The age distribution of women giving birth in England and Wales, as well as many other Western countries, has changed significantly in recent decades with growing numbers of women having children later in their reproductive lives. However, motherhood at an older age is positively associated with greater risks to mother and child including complications during pregnancy and birth as well as an increased risk of age-related infertility. In response to the increasing numbers of women attempting childbearing at an older age, a new form of technology has emerged, one which has the promissory potential to enable women to preserve a number of healthy young eggs for potential future use after the decline of their nature fertility. This technology is egg freezing, or as it is often referred, egg freezing for social reasons.
This paper will examine the technology of egg freezing and its use for social reasons and will argue that current lay and media representations of this technology which infer a deliberative ‘choice’ on behalf of the user to delay motherhood, to pursue career advancement, does not adequately or accurately reflect the experiences of women engaging with this technology. Instead, and by drawing on data collected in 31 interviews with female users of this technology, this paper will suggest that women’s decision to engage in egg freezing as well as their perceptions about the timing of motherhood can be seen as being shaped by contemporary parenting culture and ideologies of parenthood. Furthermore, this paper will examine how these ideologies and expectations about parenthood are shaped by the demographic profile of the users of this technology.

Nicky Hudson: As a culturally pervasive technology, IVF and its related techniques have globalised at a rapid rate, spreading to most regions of the world. As one corollary of this development, cross-border assisted reproduction has emerged as a means by which individuals and couples can travel from their country of origin in order to seek access to fertility treatment services in another country. Little is currently known about a novel range of family forms created via these transnational processes. Whilst analytic comparisons can be made with the global connections found in cases of inter-country adoption, families formed using assisted reproduction can be differentiated on the basis of the complex sociotechnical negotiations required to achieve pregnancy.
This paper draws on data from a UK-based study of cross-border assisted reproduction to consider the ways in which parenting projects and new familial subjectivities are achieved within the context of globalised IVF. It uses qualitative interview data from women and men travelling from the UK to a range of countries for fertility treatment and offers a consideration of how thinking with ideas about globalised reproduction can assist us in understanding localised family practices. The paper develops existing theorising about ‘world families’ (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim 2014:2); extending this formulation to reflect the increasingly internationalised nature of ARTs and the attendant complexities of biomedicalised family formation in this context.