Physician associates

[Rob Oldfield]

I think it's a bit dafter than that. The NHS Long Term Plan allocated some money to the Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme (ARRS), so specific money that could not be spent on GPs (or nurses). Which isn't (in my opinion) crazy in itself: GP surgeries can be improved by having physiotherapists, pharmacists, etc.). But it seems to have resulted in quite a few GPs who can't find employment and quite a few places for physician associates (with uncertain value since they need to be supervised by GPs). It all seems a bit of a mess.

The good news is that ARRS is being altered to allow GPs to be hired. (A symptom of grown ups in government trying to sort out the mess.) Registration needed for that site.

 

[Rob Oldfield]

Thank you, I suspect it is a way that the practice doesn't have to pay for a actual GP. Both I have seen have been OK, I have never actually seen my actual doctor, other than when he did the Covid vaccinations.

The pay issue is certainly one of the reasons they are around. Key question, in my opinion, is whether the person you're seeing is regulated. PAs are not.

I actually had an health issue a couple of weeks ago where I put in information about that condition to my GP website. Result of that was a call back from a GP to discuss and, following that, a face to face with a non GP at surgery. He had a paramedic background but was regulated. (Yes, I did ask, and yes, he was fully aware of the controversy and was fine with me asking. He confirmed that my particular surgery doesn't use PAs)

Main thing for me was that my initial contact had been with GP who'd then passed me on to someone he considered appropriate. It's where you have PAs making decisions beyond their expertise that it gets ugly.