Comparing physician associates and foundation year two doctors-in-training undertaking emergency medicine consultations in England: a mixed-methods study of processes and outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the contribution of physician associates to the processes and outcomes of emergency medicine consultations with that of foundation year two doctors-in-training. DESIGN: Mixed-methods study: retrospective chart review using 4 months' anonymised clinical record data of all patients seen by physician associates or foundation year two doctors-in-training in 2016; review of a subsample of 40 records for clinical adequacy; semi-structured interviews with staff and patients; observations of physician associates. SETTING: Three emergency departments in England. PARTICIPANTS: The records of 8816 patients attended by 6 physician associates and 40 foundation year two doctors-in-training; of these n=3197 had the primary outcome recorded (n=1129 physician associates, n=2068 doctor); 14 clinicians and managers and 6 patients or relatives for interview; 5 physician associates for observation. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was unplanned re-attendance at the same emergency department within 7 days. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: consultation processes, clinical adequacy of care, and staff and patient experience. RESULTS: Re-attendances within 7 days (n=194 (6.1%)) showed no difference between physician associates and foundation year two doctors-in-training (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.24, p=0.437). If seen by a physician associate, patients were more likely receive an X-ray investigation (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.72 to 4.24), p<0.001), after adjustment for patient characteristics, triage severity of condition and statistically significant clinician intraclass correlation. Clinical reviewers found almost all patients' charts clinically adequate. Physician associates were evaluated as assessing patients in a similar way to foundation year two doctors-in-training and providing continuity in the team. Patients were positive about the care they had received from a physician associate, but had poor understanding of the role. CONCLUSIONS: Physician associates in emergency departments in England treated patients with a range of conditions safely, and at a similar level to foundation year two doctors-in-training, providing clinical operational efficiencies.

What is the contribution of physician associates in hospital care in England? A mixed methods, multiple case study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the deployment of physician associates (PAs); the factors supporting and inhibiting their employment and their contribution and impact on patients' experience and outcomes and the organisation of services. DESIGN: Mixed methods within a case study design, using interviews, observations, work diaries and documentary analysis. SETTING: Six acute care hospitals in three regions of England in 2016-2017. PARTICIPANTS: 43 PAs, 77 other health professionals, 28 managers, 28 patients and relatives. RESULTS: A key influencing factor supporting the employment of PAs in all settings was a shortage of doctors. PAs were found to be acceptable, appropriate and safe members of the medical/surgical teams by the majority of doctors, managers and nurses. They were mainly deployed to undertake inpatient ward work in the medical/surgical team during core weekday hours. They were reported to positively contribute to: continuity within their medical/surgical team, patient experience and flow, inducting new junior doctors, supporting the medical/surgical teams' workload, which released doctors for more complex patients and their training. The lack of regulation and attendant lack of authority to prescribe was seen as a problem in many but not all specialties. The contribution of PAs to productivity and patient outcomes was not quantifiable separately from other members of the team and wider service organisation. Patients and relatives described PAs positively but most did not understand who and what a PA was, often mistaking them for doctors. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers new insights concerning the deployment and contribution of PAs in medical and surgical specialties in English hospitals. PAs provided a flexible addition to the secondary care workforce without drawing from existing professions. Their utility in the hospital setting is unlikely to be completely realised without the appropriate level of regulation and authority to prescribe medicines and order ionising radiation within their scope of practice.

The case for the physician assistant.

The NHS is facing a crisis from the combination of EWTD, MMC, the ageing population and rising expectations; thus its tradition of high quality care is under pressure. Physician assistants (PAs) are a new profession to the UK, educated to nationally set standards and, working as dependent practitioners, provide care in the medical model. PAs are currently employed by over 20 hospital Trusts as well as in primary care. They offer greater continuity than locum doctors and at considerably lower cost. PAs maintain generic competence and can therefore be utilised as required across different clinical areas. The stability of PAs in the workforce will be an additional resource for junior doctors on brief rotations. For the full benefits of PAs to be realised, and for the safety of the public, statutory registration and prescribing rights are required. Active support from the NHS is now needed to develop the workforce required.