Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Advertisement
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Letters

The medical care practitioner: Newspeak and the duping of the public

Diane Reeves and Colin Browne
British Journal of General Practice 2005; 55 (512): 230.
Diane Reeves
Rowley Regis & Tipton PCT, West Midlands. E-mail:
Roles: Director of Clinical Quality & Health Improvement
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: reeves.diane@rrt-pct.nhs.uk
Colin Browne
Roles: PEC Chair
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

We were saddened to read Iona Heath's editorial ‘The medical care practitioner: Newspeak and the duping of the public’.1

Iona has failed to look at the evidence base concerning the physician assistant (PA) role both in the US and the UK. If she had done so she would have found that PAs are both clinically safe, and positively received by patients.2,3 She would have also discovered that the PA role is not particularly a primary care practitioner role. PAs are generic medical practitioners working to assist physicians in all areas of medical practice, not independently of them. Rowley Regis & Tipton PCT was the first primary care organisation (PCO) in the UK to employ PAs trained in the USA to undertake clinical work, after the first of our two nurse-led PMS practices appointed one and suggested the role might be generalisable within the UK. Now we know of at least six other trusts (PCOs and NHS hospital trusts) that employ them in a number of diverse roles. Before recruiting we carried out extensive research, including visits to US universities delivering PA educational programmes. Two of us who went on these visits both felt that the level of skills, knowledge and experience of the US trained PAs was similar to that which we had had as GP registrars. We now have almost 2 years experience of PAs in general practice and plenty of data, both quantitative and qualitative, on all aspects of care provided by PAs and patients' experiences of them. We have also recruited PAs to work in our local A&E departments and our GP co-op out-of-hours service. One of us is an RCGP member (as are many of our doctors who have PAs working alongside them) and the lead director for the PA project for the PCO, the other is the PCO Professional Executive Committee (PEC) chair. Both of us are practising GPs.

Iona has failed to be critical of her sources. There are a number of so-called mid-level practitioner projects being developed in the UK at the present time involving various medical specialties and the professions allied to medicine. The Changing Workforce Programme (CWP) has, indeed, led some of these projects, but others have arisen spontaneously in advance of the CWP's project in response to local need, as ours has. I wonder whether Iona has really thought about whether there is no role for a mid-level practitioner in general practice at all, or whether it is just the CWP's model she doesn't like.

  • © British Journal of General Practice, 2005.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Heath I
    (2004) The medical care practitioner: Newspeak and the duping of the public. Br J Gen Pract 54:891.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Powe ML,
    2. Hughes N
    (1999) The role of physician assistants in the delivery of medical care. J Med Pract Manage 15(2):73–76.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Roblin DW,
    2. Becker ER,
    3. Adams EK,
    4. et al.
    (2004) Patient satisfaction with primary care: does type of practitioner matter? Med Care 42(6):579–590.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed

Author's response

A number of correspondents appear to have misunderstood the nature of my objection to the training and deployment of medical care practitioners. I welcome unequivocally the extension of skill-mix and team working within primary care, but I am profoundly suspicious of the change of name from physican assistant to medical care practitioner. The former describes a role that can be clearly understood, the latter seems designed to mislead and to suggest to the patient that the professional they are consulting is medically qualified. I note that none of your correspondents offers an explanation or a justification for the change of name, and until such is forthcoming, I will, with regret, remain profoundly sceptical about the whole initiative.

  • © British Journal of General Practice, 2005.
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 55 (512)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 55, Issue 512
March 2005
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The medical care practitioner: Newspeak and the duping of the public
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
The medical care practitioner: Newspeak and the duping of the public
Diane Reeves, Colin Browne
British Journal of General Practice 2005; 55 (512): 230.

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
The medical care practitioner: Newspeak and the duping of the public
Diane Reeves, Colin Browne
British Journal of General Practice 2005; 55 (512): 230.
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Two-tiered medicine: the increasing disparity in medical care in the UK
  • MRCGP Recorded Consultation Assessment — the hidden fourth construct
  • Prostate-specific antigen testing and opportunistic prostate cancer screening — CAP intervention
Show more Letters

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242