Acceptability of physician associate interns in primary care: results from a service evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Physician associates (PA) form part of the policy-driven response to increased primary care demand and a general practitioner (GP) recruitment and retention crisis. However, they are novel to the primary care workforce and have limitations, for example, they cannot prescribe. The novel 1 year Staffordshire PA Internship (SPAI) scheme, introduced in 2017, was established to support the integration of PAs into primary care. PA interns concurrently worked in primary and secondary care posts, with protected weekly primary care focussed education sessions. This evaluation established the acceptability of PA interns within primary care. METHODS: All ten PAs from the first two SPAI cohorts, the nine host practices (supervising GPs and practice managers) and host practice patients were invited to participate in the evaluation. A conceptual framework for implementing interventions in primary care informed data collection and analysis. Data were gathered at three time points over the internship from practices, through discussions with the supervising GP and/or practice manager, and from the PAs via discussion groups. To enrich discussion data, PA and practices were sent brief surveys requesting information on PA/practice characteristics and PA primary care roles. Patient acceptability data were collected by the host practices. Participation at every stage was optional. RESULTS: By evaluation end, eight PAs had completed the internship. Seven PAs and six practices provided data at every time point. Five practices provided patient acceptability data. Overall PA interns were acceptable to practices and patients, however ambiguity about the PA role and how best to communicate and operationalise PA roles was revealed. An expectation-preparedness gap resulted in PAs needing high levels of supervision early within the internship. SPAI facilitated closure of the expectation-preparedness gap and its funding arrangements made the high supervision requirements more acceptable to practices. CONCLUSIONS: The test-of-concept SPAI successfully integrated new PAs into primary care. However, the identified challenges risk undermining PAs roles in primary care before they have attained their full potential. Nationally, workforce leaders should develop approaches to support new PAs into primary care, including commitments to longer-term, sustainable, cohesive and appropriately funded schemes, including structured and standardised education and supervision.

THE POTENTIAL FOR PHARMACISTS TO MANAGE CHILDREN ATTENDING EMERGENCY DEPARTMENTS.

AIM: There have been concerns about maintaining appropriate clinical staff levels in Emergency Departments in England.1 The aim of this study was to determine if Emergency Department attendees aged from 0-16 years could be managed by community pharmacists or hospital independent prescriber pharmacists with or without further advanced clinical practice training. METHOD: A prospective, 48 site, cross-sectional, observational study of patients attending Emergency Departments (ED) in England, UK was conducted. Pharmacists at each site collected up to 400 admissions and paediatric patients were included in the data collection. The pharmacist independent prescribers (one for each site) were asked to identify patient attendance at their Emergency Department, record anonymised details of the cases-age, weight, presenting complaint, clinical grouping (e.g. medicine, orthopaedics), and categorise each presentation into one of four possible categories: CP, Community Pharmacist, cases which could be managed by a community pharmacist outside an ED setting; IP-cases that could be managed at ED by a hospital pharmacist with independent prescriber status; IPT, Independent Prescriber Pharmacist with additional training-cases which could be managed at ED by a hospital pharmacist independent prescriber with additional clinical training; and MT, Medical Team only-cases that were unsuitable for the pharmacist to manage. An Impact Index was calculated for the two most frequent clinical groupings using the formula: Impact index=percentage of the total workload of the clinical grouping multiplied by the percentage ability of pharmacists to manage that clinical group. RESULTS: 1623 out of 18,229 (9%) attendees, from 45 of the 48 sites, were children aged from 0 to 16 years of age (median 8 yrs, range 0-16), 749 were female and 874 were male. Of the 1623 admissions, 9% of the cases were judged to be suitable for clinical management by a community pharmacist (CP), 4% suitable for a hospital pharmacist independent prescriber (IP), 32% suitable for a hospital independent pharmacist prescriber with additional training (IPT); and the remaining 55% were only suitable for the Medical Team (MT). The most frequent clinical groups and impact index for the attendees were General Medicine=10.78 and orthopaedics=10.60. CONCLUSION: Paediatric patients attending Emergency Departments were judged by pharmacists to be suitable for management outside a hospital setting in approximately 1 in 11 cases, and by hospital independent prescriber pharmacists in 4 in 10 cases. With further training, it was found that the total proportion of cases that could be managed by a pharmacist was 45%. The greatest impact for pharmacist management occurs in general medicine and orthopaedics.