A contentious intervention to support the medical workforce: a case study of the policy of introducing physician associates in the United Kingdom.

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Martin McKee, Louella K Vaughan, Giuliano Russo
{"title":"A contentious intervention to support the medical workforce: a case study of the policy of introducing physician associates in the United Kingdom.","authors":"Martin McKee, Louella K Vaughan, Giuliano Russo","doi":"10.1186/s12960-024-00966-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health systems across Europe are facing a workforce crisis, with some experiencing severe shortages of doctors. In response, many are exploring greater task-sharing, across established professions, such as doctors, nurses, and pharmacists, with patients and carers, and with new occupational groups, in particular ones that can assist doctors and relieve their workload.</p><p><strong>Case presentation: </strong>In the early 2000s the United Kingdom created a new occupational role, that of physician assistant. They had a science degree and then underwent a 2-year postgraduate training course. The name soon changed, to physician associate, and the range of roles and responsibilities expanded greatly, although in a largely unregulated manner; by 2024, some were undertaking complex procedures or managing undifferentiated patients in primary care. Catalysed by some high-profile failings, this expansion has generated major concerns, over patient safety and consent, the scope of practice and preferential employment conditions of this group, the adverse consequences for medical training, and the additional medical workload involved in supervision. This has led to a widespread grassroots backlash by the medical profession, often challenging their leaders who had supported this idea. As a consequence, professional bodies that were initially in favour are now expressing serious concerns and it seems likely that the roles and responsibilities of physician associates (and related occupations) will be curtailed. We review published literature and official documentation about this policy to understand the drivers of its development, its benefits, and risks.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The experience in the UK offers cautionary lessons for other European countries contemplating similar ideas. It underscores the importance of maintaining trust with those affected by change, undertaking a detailed systems analysis with attention to risks of unintended consequences, agreeing clear role definitions, providing adequate regulatory oversight, and the need to avoid damaging training of future doctors. This case study highlights the need for a carefully thought-out approach that considers both the potential benefits and pitfalls of integrating new roles like physician associates into a healthcare system. The failure to do so has created a new occupational group with unrealistic expectations and has further demoralised an already unhappy medical profession.</p>","PeriodicalId":39823,"journal":{"name":"Human Resources for Health","volume":"23 1","pages":"4"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11748592/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Resources for Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-024-00966-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Health systems across Europe are facing a workforce crisis, with some experiencing severe shortages of doctors. In response, many are exploring greater task-sharing, across established professions, such as doctors, nurses, and pharmacists, with patients and carers, and with new occupational groups, in particular ones that can assist doctors and relieve their workload.

Case presentation: In the early 2000s the United Kingdom created a new occupational role, that of physician assistant. They had a science degree and then underwent a 2-year postgraduate training course. The name soon changed, to physician associate, and the range of roles and responsibilities expanded greatly, although in a largely unregulated manner; by 2024, some were undertaking complex procedures or managing undifferentiated patients in primary care. Catalysed by some high-profile failings, this expansion has generated major concerns, over patient safety and consent, the scope of practice and preferential employment conditions of this group, the adverse consequences for medical training, and the additional medical workload involved in supervision. This has led to a widespread grassroots backlash by the medical profession, often challenging their leaders who had supported this idea. As a consequence, professional bodies that were initially in favour are now expressing serious concerns and it seems likely that the roles and responsibilities of physician associates (and related occupations) will be curtailed. We review published literature and official documentation about this policy to understand the drivers of its development, its benefits, and risks.

Conclusions: The experience in the UK offers cautionary lessons for other European countries contemplating similar ideas. It underscores the importance of maintaining trust with those affected by change, undertaking a detailed systems analysis with attention to risks of unintended consequences, agreeing clear role definitions, providing adequate regulatory oversight, and the need to avoid damaging training of future doctors. This case study highlights the need for a carefully thought-out approach that considers both the potential benefits and pitfalls of integrating new roles like physician associates into a healthcare system. The failure to do so has created a new occupational group with unrealistic expectations and has further demoralised an already unhappy medical profession.

一个有争议的干预,以支持医疗队伍:在英国引入医师助理的政策的案例研究。
背景:整个欧洲的卫生系统正面临着劳动力危机,其中一些系统面临着医生严重短缺的问题。作为回应,许多人正在探索在医生、护士和药剂师等现有职业之间,与患者和护理人员,以及与新的职业群体,特别是那些能够协助医生并减轻他们工作量的职业群体,进行更大程度的任务分担。案例介绍:在21世纪初,英国创造了一个新的职业角色,即医师助理。他们获得了科学学位,然后接受了为期两年的研究生培训课程。名称很快改变为医师助理,角色和职责范围大大扩大,尽管在很大程度上不受监管;到2024年,一些人正在进行复杂的手术或在初级保健中管理未分化的患者。由于一些引人注目的失败,这种扩大引起了对病人安全和同意、这一群体的业务范围和优惠就业条件、对医疗培训的不利后果以及涉及监督的额外医疗工作量等方面的重大关切。这引起了医学界广泛的基层反对,他们经常挑战支持这一想法的领导人。因此,最初支持的专业团体现在表达了严重的担忧,医生助理(和相关职业)的角色和责任似乎将被削减。我们回顾了有关该政策的已发表文献和官方文件,以了解其发展的驱动因素、收益和风险。结论:英国的经验为其他考虑类似想法的欧洲国家提供了警示。它强调了与受变化影响的人保持信任的重要性,进行详细的系统分析,注意意外后果的风险,商定明确的角色定义,提供充分的监管监督,以及避免对未来医生进行破坏性培训的必要性。本案例研究强调了需要仔细考虑将新角色(如医师助理)整合到医疗保健系统中的潜在好处和缺陷的方法。如果做不到这一点,就产生了一个新的职业群体,他们有着不切实际的期望,并进一步削弱了本已不愉快的医疗行业的士气。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Human Resources for Health
Human Resources for Health Social Sciences-Public Administration
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
4.40%
发文量
102
审稿时长
34 weeks
期刊介绍: Human Resources for Health is an open access, peer-reviewed, online journal covering all aspects of planning, producing and managing the health workforce - all those who provide health services worldwide. Human Resources for Health aims to disseminate research on health workforce policy, the health labour market, health workforce practice, development of knowledge tools and implementation mechanisms nationally and internationally; as well as specific features of the health workforce, such as the impact of management of health workers" performance and its link with health outcomes. The journal encourages debate on health sector reforms and their link with human resources issues, a hitherto-neglected area.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信