Physician associates union takes Government to court over planned role changes
It follows findings by a Government-ordered report that PAs have been used as substitutes for doctors despite having significantly less training.
The review chaired by Professor Gillian Leng, who is president of the Royal Society of Medicine, said PAs should be banned from seeing patients who have not been reviewed by a medic to prevent the risk of 'catastrophic' misdiagnoses.
On Sunday, UMAPs has sent letters to the Health Secretary and NHS England expressing their intent to make a judicial review claim, the union said.
They are urging the Government to reconsider what the union described as a 'complete overhaul' of their profession, and have accused Mr Streeting of playing into the hand of the British Medical Association (BMA) as resident doctors strike over pay.
Stephen Nash, general secretary of Umaps said: 'The Leng Review found no hard evidence that physician associates are unsafe or ineffective.
'Nevertheless, Wes Streeting has accepted the Review's recommendations to completely overhaul our job roles, without so much as consulting Umaps as the recognised trade union for PAs and AAs.
'That is both unfair and completely irrational.
'We are incredibly concerned about how these changes will impact patients' access to care, particularly during the ongoing BMA strikes.'
A five-day walkout by resident doctors in England is under way, with members of the BMA manning picket lines across the country.
The Government has until August 1 to indicate whether or not it will reconsider its decision, the union said.
More than 3,500 PAs and 100 AAs are working in the NHS and there have been previous calls for an expansion in their number.
But a general lack of support for both roles from the medical profession, plus high-profile deaths of patients who were misdiagnosed by PAs, led to the review.
In her report, Prof Leng concluded there were 'no convincing reasons to abolish the roles of AA or PA' but there is also no case 'for continuing with the roles unchanged'.
She said more detail was needed on which patients can be seen by PAs and national clinical protocols will now be developed in this area.
'Prior to these changes, PAs undertook approximately 20 million appointments a year,' Mr Nash added.
'Now, every day we hear from employers who are struggling to manage patient loads because PAs and AAs are no longer allowed to carry out the jobs we are trained to do.
'Yet the Health Secretary has seemingly not carried out any assessment of how the Leng recommendations will affect NHS backlogs.
'It is hard to see Mr Streeting's decision as anything other than an attempt to mollify the increasingly radical BMA, which has spent the last few years waging a vindictive and highly coordinated campaign against Medical Associates.
'Now he has played right into the BMA's hand, preventing qualified medical professionals from treating patients properly so that their strikes bite even harder.'
Sneha Naiwal, a partner at Shakespeare Martineau which is leading the case for UMAPs, said: 'This case is not about resisting change, but about ensuring that change is lawful, evidence-based, and respectful of the professionals who have long served on the front lines of patient care.
'Physician associates deserve a meaningful voice in shaping their future, not to be sidelined by decisions taken without full and open engagement.
'The claimants are concerned that the current approach could undermine a vital part of the clinical workforce and increase pressure on NHS services, to the detriment of patients and staff alike.'
Six patient deaths linked to contact with PAs have been recorded by coroners in England.
One high-profile death involved Emily Chesterton, 30, who died from a pulmonary embolism.
She was misdiagnosed by a PA on two occasions and told she had anxiety.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
5 minutes ago
- Forbes
Do Employers Have A Rational Fear Of Hiring Disabled Staff?
Sir Charlie Mayfield, a stalwart of the UK business community and advisor to Liz Kendall, Work and Pensions Secretary, has recently been quoted in The Times stating that employers have a 'rational' fear of hiring disabled staff. During his review of workplace sickness, Mayfield concluded that adapting work to staff with health problems was a huge issue that required employers to change, but suggested extra duties on businesses were not the answer. He said: "We've got a large amount of legislation which places requirements on employers and it's partly because of that that a lot of employers see it as risky to employ disabled people. And so quite rationally, they don't, even though we all know that's not the right outcome." The context for these comments is one in which 2.5 million UK workers are permanently off sick, and 8.7 million workers identifying as disabled. There's been an increase of 800,000 people too unwell to work since 2019, which is unsustainable for workers, their life outcomes and financial stability as well as the national economy. Rights Versus Reality? So are Mayfield's comments and his discovery report for the Department of Work and Pensions yet another stick with which to beat disabled people? Or are his remarks click bait headlines, papering over some well reasoned insights which need to be surfaced, understood and addressed? Mayfield commented on the rise in Employment Tribunals and the extra duties on UK businesses: The present approach "pitches rights against reality. If someone's ill and they have a fit note, there's a stand-off almost between that person and their employer, who could be part of the solution. We need to move from a position where too much of this is about risk and fear, to one where we humanise this and encourage people to be talking of finding solutions." The adversarial narratives that exist between communities of lived experience and employers has swiftly deepened in recent years, with each group finding very different sources of advice online and increases in perceptions of conflict and unfairness from all sides – employee, colleague and employer. However, read deeper into the report, and Mayfield is recommending an incentivisation approach to disability employment (the proverbial 'carrot', rather than the legislative 'stick'). Crucially, he recommends that employers intervene early when someone is struggling, rather than lagging in the provision of adjustments or support. Indeed, failure to provide timely intervention is a frequent cause of employment tribunals, with compensation up to £230,000 in one recent case. A shift in responsiveness would be very welcome by the disabled and neurodivergent community and it seems pretty logical. Government support and incentives for early intervention seem rational, but we will need to think carefully about what to provide. Early Intervention Guidance Advice on disability adjustments for individuals from the government service Access to Work or in-house / private Occupational Health is routinely a first port of call for employees and employers respectively. Access to Work has been a lifeline for employees over the past few decades, and has funded services and equipment that exceeds the budgets of many small businesses. However, it has become so log jammed that there is a community pressure group now set up to raise awareness of the problem founded by Dr Shani Dhanda. Occupational health services can be excellent and provide or signpost the specialist advice needed. But costs have spiralled with a clinical, 'assessment first' provision when there are so many referrals. There's a lack of filtering so those with the greatest needs are getting the same level of intervention as those who need a simple set of strategies or some software. Some of the occupational health companies are delivering the same services that they recommend, which is a structural conflict of interest and risks driving up costs - this practice is banned in Access to Work and Disabled Students Allowance, for example. So while we're telling employers to do more, faster, we will also need to be clear about the 'how' and the 'what'. With grand policy gestures and an increasingly litigious atmosphere, the needs of the businesses risk being overlooked and on that note, Sir Mayfield's comments are on point. Advice on adjustments for health and disability needs to be a collaboration between employer and employee. An assessment should consult both parties, and review what the individual needs in relation to the resources available. For example, a higher cost burden might be acceptable for a larger business than a small business. Safety critical roles might not have as much flexibility as a standard role. It is therefore not possible to list reasonable adjustments for each physical, emotional or cognitive difficulty. These can act as guidance, but not definitive entitlements. The policy and specialist support environment is going to need to become more sophisticated, and more responsive to balancing needs and addressing conflict, unfairness and unreasonable requests / restrictions. This is not a straightforward ask. Needs-led models How can employers find good advice in a complex and risky environment? The needs-led model is a good alternative to the medical model, relying more on practical support than clinical diagnosis. At work, we don't need to know the cause of back pain to know that a first port of call is a desk assessment or moving and handling review. Improving knowledge of functional, everyday difficulties and potential scaffolding is within the grasp of HR with the occasional advice of specialists where needed. Up-skilling employer confidence and competence is a potential avenue to improving outcomes, particularly in the areas of emotional regulation and cognition-dependent task performance where the challenges and the solutions are not visible. Knowing what to provide can be a pragmatic, low-cost conversation – research indicates that the cheapest or free adjustments are typically the most welcome, and that employees prefer the ability to personalize rather than passively receive an off-the-shelf allocation. As the population ages, the disability inclusion problem is not going to go away. Employers who are not developing a straightforward and accessible pathway to inclusion – at the company and individual level – will remain at risk of employment tribunal losses. This isn't a question of rights versus reality, it is a question of taking charge of a business need versus sticking your head in the sand. The rational fear of tribunals can be replaced by a rational approach to managing a large and growing cohort of disabled employees. Given the urgency of resolving the problem at the national level, now is a great time to start a strategic workforce plan.
Bloomberg
5 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Hackers Steal Passwords From UK's NHS With Sneaky Malware Tool
Ambulances parked outside the emergency department at the National Health Service's Royal Liverpool University Hospital in Liverpool, UK.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Glasgow hospice funding plea as it reveals £755k shortfall
A GLASGOW hospice has begun a fundraising campaign after revealing it faces a shortfall of more than three quarters of a million pounds. The Prince and Princess of Wales Hospice in Bellahouston Park is hoping 'the local community' will support its Vital Care Appeal. Chief Executive Rhona Baillie said: 'We provide free specialist palliative and end-of-life care to 1200 new patients and their families each year, both at the hospice at Bellahouston Park and in patients' own homes. 'We're doing everything we can to keep our costs to a minimum. We run our services efficiently, we're innovating with our fundraising, and we make every pound count. 'But despite our efforts, a significant funding gap remains.' (Image: Colin Mearns/Newsquest) The hospice is predicting a £755,000 shortfall in funding, citing the rise in demand for its services, patients' more complex needs and rising costs as the main pressures. Ms Baillie said that 'with local government funding just 30 per cent of running the hospice, the remaining 70 per cent comes from fundraising and donations' and added: 'We're not in crisis yet, but we need to act and that's why we are turning to our friends in the community for help.' Kirsty with her dad, Robert (Image: PPWH) Kirsty Dolan, 22, is supporting the appeal following the death of her dad, Robert, in the hospice in 2021. Robert was diagnosed with Parkinson's when he was 48 and Kirsty, who was only 10 at the time, along with her mum and older sister, became carers for him. In 2021, he visited the hospital for inpatient care. READ NEXT: Seeds of trees which survived Hiroshima help create new Glasgow garden Glasgow pupil heading for top art school after exam success 'We'll use King's Honours to keep battling for our Glasgow community' 'He had developed supranuclear palsy and needed specialist care,' said Kirsty. 'He was in the IPU for about a week where he just received the very best care you could imagine. 'We got to spend as much time with him as we could, and we even got to bring our dogs in for a visit. When he was nearing the end of his life, we all stayed over at the hospice in the family rooms so we could be close.' Kirsty also received support from the hospice's Family Support Service. 'I was really struggling,' she said. 'I was at breaking point. I emailed the hospice and the Family Support Service got in touch – and I have to say, it changed my life. "The team worked with me over a period of time and just helped me see things differently. ' It really was a lifeline, and I needed that support so much.' Glasgow Times readers helped raise the £21m needed for the new hospice, which opened in 2018, through our Brick by Brick Appeal. For more information on the Vital Care Appeal visit or call 0141 726 2660.
