On May 13th our judicial review of the GMC, the way they have regulated associates, will be heard in the High Court.

This case has been made possible thanks to over £200,000 in public donations; a remarkable show of solidarity from both doctors and concerned patients. But we remain short of funds. As the hearing approaches, we hope many more will stand with us and donate to our Crowdjustice page.

The case was granted Permission and Expedition without a hearing – with Mr Justice Chamberlain observing in the early stages of the case that “The claim raises serious issues of importance to the relevant professions and to patients” (the GMC tried to claim our case was hopeless and could not even be argued).

What is the case about?

PAs and AAs were introduced to help doctors by taking on some clinical tasks under supervision. They have only a fraction of the training that doctors do, and their training is geared towards working in an assistant capacity. Yet increasingly they are being used to diagnose, treat, and manage patients, often without proper supervision, and leaving their patients unaware that they have seen an associate rather than a doctor.

Parliament recognised these dangers. It took regulation of associates away from the Medical Royal Colleges and gave the GMC strong powers to set firm and strict rules But instead it has merely created a hollow regulatory system, recycling the processes that it uses for doctors, despite knowing that associates have very different roles, training, and risks.

This is irrational and breaks both

• The letter of the law – which requires the regulator to consult, set and review the standards of ‘Experience and Performance’ for associates, and 
• The spirit of the law – which gives the regulator an overarching objective of protecting the public.

And these failings have already led to avoidable deaths.

The Chesterton family are co-claimants

Emily Chesterton died needlessly, after an unsupervised PA failed to recognise a life-threatening condition. She believed she was seeing a doctor. So did her parents. She wasn’t. 

Her mother will give a witness statement to the court describing not just what happened to Emily but also her meeting with Mr Massey of the GMC who promised her “No more Emilys”.

Despite the overwhelming calls from the Medical Royal Colleges, academics, coroners and the public itself, the GMC has steadfastly refused to set proper safeguards and controls over what associates can do to patients. The ongoing Leng review is also expected to demand changes – but these changes have to happen quickly. Which is why this legal action is both urgent and necessary.

The latest study in the British Medical Journal  found no evidence that physician associates add value in general practice, and some evidence that they may not. Similar concerns exist about the cost-effectiveness of anaesthesia associates.

The GMC attempted to prevent the court from seeing this data, but our legal team persuaded the judge that it must be considered.

The Medical Women’s Federation has also endorsed this case. They highlight:

• The risks to patient safety from PAs working without a clear scope of practice
• PAs ordering tests they may not be competent to interpret
• The disproportionate impact on women in medicine, especially in training

What are we asking for?

We are asking the High Court to declare the GMC’s current approach is unlawful, irrational, and contrary to Parliament’s intent to protect patient safety.

Thank you for all the donations we have received. We still need more. If you can donate again, please do. Please share details of the case with friends, family and colleagues. We have a selection of posters you can use to highlight the case.

See you in court. We are still awaiting a decision on whether or not the case will be live-streamed.