United Medical Associate Professionals Trade Union welcomes the publication of the General Medical Council’s guidance document relating to the supervision of Physician Associates and Anaesthesia Associates in clinical practice.
The GMC guidance document clearly outlines the designated responsibilities of supervising doctors in a manner that is clear, concise and leaves little room for misinterpretation – either accidental or otherwise. The guidance identifies the need for proportionate and context-based supervision, highlighting the differing levels of supervision required for PAs and AAs based on their seniority and level of experience. We support this nuanced approach to supervision and the reassurance and clarity that this will provide to employers, supervisors, MAPs, and our non-medical colleagues.
The GMC’s guidance is responsive to the needs of the 21st century healthcare team; it allows MAPs to work to the full extent of their scope of practice and support their colleagues, without compromising patient safety or transparency.
UMAPs TU feels that the GMC are clear not only in the responsibilities of the supervising doctor, but also in the responsibilities of individual PAs and AAs who must maintain their own professional standards and competencies. Providing safe and effective patient care is our main priority as medical professionals, and we feel that this guidance document – along with professional regulation – is another step towards ensuring continuing patient safety, whilst also supporting our PA and AA workforce as educated medical professionals.
We are delighted to see the guidance documents produced by UMAPs and the College of Medical Associate Professionals referred to and referenced in the GMC’s own supervision document, and we are pleased to note more and more Trusts and MAP employers adopting these guidelines across both Primary and Secondary care.
The modern healthcare landscape is ever changing, and the NHS can only survive if we support and encourage positive working relationships and collaboration between professional groups. It is therefore disheartening to once again see such biased and inflammatory statements from a medical college.
PA Stephen Nash, General Secretary of UMAPs, stated: “Time and time again, we see the RCP seemingly volunteering to act as the weaponised arm of the British Medical Association neglecting evidence-based arguments and throwing itself into populism at the detriment of patients and Medical Associates alike. With the failure of the BMA legal case, the public are now increasingly aware that the campaign against MAPs has been one of malice, protectionism, falsehoods and conjecture – unfortunately the RCP is continuing to double down on producing incorrect and malicious statements”.
He continued, “UMAPs and CMAPs stepped up when the RCP turned its back on PAs and employers. We produced sensible, evidence-based and trusted guidance that protects patients, Medical Associates, and their supervisors. Unlike some malicious publications, our guidance has not breached employment rights and has instead facilitated good relations across the MDT where adopted, increasing access to care for patients and enhancing services across the country. We are honoured that the GMC has decided to reference our guidance, sending a clear message to employers that the minimum expectation is compliance with the Professional Organisations that represent MAPs”.
UMAPs remains committed to working with the General Medical Council and employers to ensure that the supervision and guidance of PAs and AAs remains safe, proportional, appropriate, and is supported by robust governance that does not discriminate against the MAP workforce.
We fully support the GMC in their publication of this document, and we look forward to continuing to develop and nurture our professional relationship with them in their role as the PA and AA regulatory body.
