Fresh off a win against the British Medical Association, the General Medical Council will face down a group of activist anaesthetists.
The UK’s physician regulator will be in court again this week over its role in regulating physician and anaesthesia associates, just weeks after beating a challenge by the British Medical Association on the same topic.
This time, it will be up against Anaesthetists United, which describes itself as an “informal group” made up of trainees and consultants who felt that leadership in the space had been lacking.
Its central claim is that the General Medical Council (GMC) was set up so that the public would be able to tell who was and was not a doctor, and that this aim is undermined by the fact that it now regulates physician associates (PAs) and anaesthesia associates (AAs), who are not doctors.
In its Letter Before Action, Anaesthetists United alleged that the GMC’s failure to set limits on the specific tasks that AAs and PAs may safely and lawfully undertake and its failure to regulate on a properly informed basis are incompatible with its duties under the Medical Act 1983.
The hearing will take place at the Royal Courts of Justice on Wednesday and Thursday this week, UK time.
The Anaesthetist United legal action follows a similar challenge led by the British Medical Association (BMA) earlier this year.
In February, the BMA took the GMC to the High Court in London to accuse the regulator of “abandoning its responsibility to patients’ safety by blurring the lines between doctors and non-doctors”.
Related
The association’s lawyers argued that the GMC’s approach to using the term “medical professionals” as a catch-all term for doctors, PAs and AAs undermined its statutory functions and objectives as a regulator of health professionals and contravened the requirements imposed on it via legislation.
Last month, the judge in that case handed down a ruling dismissing the claims brought by the BMA.
“‘We are pleased the court has recognised that our decision to produce our guidance in the form of a single set of core standards for all three professions we regulate was a logical and lawful decision to reach, and one which followed an exhaustive and detailed process of consultation, research and inquiry which engaged all major stakeholders, including the BMA,” GMC chief executive Charlie Massey said.
“Our approach, in publishing a single set of core standards, is consistent with what we heard during the consultation period, as well as with that of other multi-profession healthcare regulators.
“The judge concluded that PAs and AAs following the same professional standards as doctors was logical, and that in doing so the GMC had acted at all stages to further patient safety.”
The BMA, meanwhile, called the ruling “disappointing” and said it was “considering its next steps”.
“Having ruled on the legal technicalities the Court has ignored common sense, and the effect will be to perpetuate the patient safety issues caused by this confusion,” BMA council chair Professor Phil Banfield said.
“The potential for patient harm in equating the two roles has been shown in the … hundreds of examples of patients put at risk or harmed.”
This is the third year of the very public UK physician associate debacle.
While the role has been present in the National Health Service since the early 2000s, the government announced a plan in 2023 to triple the number of PAs and AAs working in the health system by 2038.
The relevant qualification is a bioscience-related undergraduate degree and a two-year Master of Physician Associate Studies program.
They are not permitted to prescribe medicines or order ionising radiation.
Very few PAs work in Australia, although the Queensland government has made moves to expand its current workforce.
