We are disappointed to hear the judge ruled against the BMA in their judicial review of the GMC, over the use of the term ‘medical professionals’ and applying “Good Medical Practice” to AAs and PAs.

In her judgement she rejected the case on all three grounds and refused the application for an extension of time.

Our own legal case, which revolves around Scope of Practice for AAs and PAs, is due to be heard on May 13th.

The judge rejected the BMA claim because she felt

• The term ‘medical professionals’ has no statutory definition and is merely an ‘umbrella’ term for both doctors and associates.
• There were no objections to the term raised in the initial consultations.
• There is nothing irrational or inconsistent in the way the GMC are using the term.
• Associates are members of a profession, trained to the medical model, undertaking work which might otherwise be performed by doctors… viewed in this way, the defendant was entitled to conclude that the term “medical professional” was apt.

The judge was clear that

Use of the term “medical professionals” in GMP does not imply that associates are regulated doctors. Far from suggesting that PAs and AAs can, or should, misdescribe themselves as regulated physicians, GMP makes clear that all medical professionals have a clear ethical duty to be honest about their experience and role.

And she concluded

… the challenge here is not to the existence, use, training or scope of practice of associates in general, all of which are a source of concern for the claimant’s members and may pose risks to patients, but to two aspects of the defendant’s decision making in respect of how associates are referred to and regulated by GMP. There is no evidence that serious patient safety concerns are the result of the decisions under challenge.

The BMA are considering their next steps following this ruling,

The medical model

So we now have to live with the paradox of a non-medically qualified medical professional trained in the medical model.

Patients need to be very clear about any ambiguities, and who is actually treating them. 

The judicial review that we are bringing is less about terminology and more about the practicalities. What is the difference between doctors and associates in terms of what they can and cannot do? We believe that there has to be a defined and properly-enforced difference between the two.

The most common, most costly and most dangerous of medical mistakes are errors in diagnosis. There is clear evidence that developing skills in diagnosis takes many years. The strongest evidence for the safe and effective practice of PAs comes from studies in which they are working under the direct supervision of a doctor and in a defined scope of practice.

And that is what we are calling for.