Physician associates and GPs in primary care: a comparison.

BACKGROUND: Physician associates [PAs] (also known as physician assistants) are new to the NHS and there is little evidence concerning their contribution in general practice. AIM: This study aimed to compare outcomes and costs of same-day requested consultations by PAs with those of GPs. DESIGN AND SETTING: An observational study of 2086 patient records presenting at same-day appointments in 12 general practices in England. METHOD: PA consultations were compared with those of GPs. Primary outcome was re-consultation within 14 days for the same or linked problem. Secondary outcomes were processes of care. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the rates of re-consultation (rate ratio 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.86 to 1.79, P = 0.25). There were no differences in rates of diagnostic tests ordered (1.08, 95% CI = 0.89 to 1.30, P = 0.44), referrals (0.95, 95% CI = 0.63 to 1.43, P = 0.80), prescriptions issued (1.16, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.53, P = 0.31), or patient satisfaction (1.00, 95% CI = 0.42 to 2.36, P = 0.99). Records of initial consultations of 79.2% (n = 145) of PAs and 48.3% (n = 99) of GPs were judged appropriate by independent GPs (P<0.001). The adjusted average PA consultation was 5.8 minutes longer than the GP consultation (95% CI = 2.46 to 7.1; P<0.001); cost per consultation was GBP £6.22, (US$ 10.15) lower (95% CI = -7.61 to -2.46, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: The processes and outcomes of PA and GP consultations for same-day appointment patients are similar at a lower consultation cost. PAs offer a potentially acceptable and efficient addition to the general practice workforce.

The contribution of physician assistants in primary care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Primary care provision is important in the delivery of health care but many countries face primary care workforce challenges. Increasing demand, enlarged workloads, and current and anticipated physician shortages in many countries have led to the introduction of mid-level professionals, such as Physician Assistants (PAs). OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to appraise the evidence of the contribution of PAs within primary care, defined for this study as general practice, relevant to the UK or similar systems. METHODS: Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, BNI, SSCI and SCOPUS databases were searched from 1950 to 2010. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: PAs with a recognised PA qualification, general practice/family medicine included and the findings relevant to it presented separately and an English language journal publication. Two reviewers independently identified relevant publications, assessed quality using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tools and extracted findings. Findings were classified and synthesised narratively as factors related to structure, process or outcome of care. RESULTS: 2167 publications were identified, of which 49 met our inclusion criteria, with 46 from the United States of America (USA). Structure: approximately half of PAs are reported to work in primary care in the USA with good support and a willingness to employ amongst doctors. PROCESS: the majority of PAs' workload is the management of patients with acute presentations. PAs tend to see younger patients and a different caseload to doctors, and require supervision. Studies of costs provide mixed results. OUTCOMES: acceptability to patients and potential patients is consistently found to be high, and studies of appropriateness report positively. Overall the evidence was appraised as of weak to moderate quality, with little comparative data presented and little change in research questions over time. LIMITATIONS: identification of a broad range of studies examining 'contribution' made meta analysis or meta synthesis untenable. CONCLUSIONS: The research evidence of the contribution of PAs to primary care was mixed and limited. However, the continued growth in employment of PAs in American primary care suggests that this professional group is judged to be of value by increasing numbers of employers. Further specific studies are needed to fill in the gaps in our knowledge about the effectiveness of PAs' contribution to the international primary care workforce.