United Medical Associate Professionals (UMAPs) & The College of Medical Associate Professionals (CMAPs) has formally submitted a comprehensive body of evidence to the Leng Review, presenting an authoritative account of the contribution, safety, and governance of Physician Associates (PAs) and Anaesthesia Associates (AAs) across NHS services. The data collection and submission, managed in collaboration with the CMAPs, includes 68 pieces of evidence Including 10 new research reports, forming the largest and most robust MAP dataset submitted to the Review to date.
The findings reaffirm what supervisors, patients, and workforce planners have long understood; that MAPs provide safe, effective, and high-quality care, while supporting NHS stability amid ongoing workforce shortages. Clinical audits and Trust-level data confirm that PAs and AAs are not only safe practitioners, but critical in ensuring continuity of care. Of over 14,000 serious incidents reported across 40 NHS Trusts, PAs were implicated in only three cases. This overwhelming statistic demonstrates the safety of Physician Associates in practice, and effectively counters claims to the contrary.
Supervisor and patient feedback consistently rates MAPs as “Very Good” across all clinical domains, with PAs and AAs routinely reducing appointment backlogs, supporting chronic disease management, assisting in mental health services, and ensuring perioperative efficiency in anaesthesia teams. In one NHS Trust, PA contributions saved over 300 hours of junior doctor time each week through discharge support alone.
However, A leading wellness report authored by lead author CMAPs’ Office of Physician Associates Co-President Mobashar Rashid, also exposes deeply concerning trends in the professional climate that MAPs work within. Survey data submitted by CMAPs shows that 96 per cent of MAPs report negative mental health impacts due to what many describe as ‘a hostile and sustained anti-MAP campaign’. Thirty-eight per cent of qualified MAPs report bullying at work, with similar rates of online abuse and discrimination. These experiences are disproportionately affecting female MAPs and those from minority ethnic backgrounds, with 35 per cent of dismissals involving MAPs from these groups despite lower representation in the workforce overall.
The full evidence submission from UMAPs also critiques the role of recent narratives, particularly those promoted by the British Medical Association (BMA), in perpetuating a misleading and politically motivated discourse on patient safety. Evidence now seemingly indicates that representatives of the BMA have collaborated with advocacy groups and think tanks to construct a false safety narrative unsupported by meaningful data. In contrast, UMAPs’ submission provides statistically validated assurance of MAP safety and effectiveness through tangible evidence.
PA Stephen Nash, General Secretary of UMAPs and Project Lead for the UMAPs & CMAPs National Enquiry Research Group, stated:
“This is not a debate grounded in evidence, it is one driven by protectionism and power consolidation. The BMA has failed, over two years, to produce a credible, data-driven case against MAPs. Our evidence shows that MAPs are safe, effective, and overwhelmingly valued by patients and supervisors alike. The campaign to misrepresent their role is not only baseless but harmful to workforce morale, integration, and ultimately, to patient care.”
UMAPs warns that implementation of restrictive policies inspired by the BMA’s guidance is already leading to costly legal consequences. Current legal proceedings linked to discriminatory employment practices are estimated to amount to £7.5 million, with projections reaching between £10 and £30 million if current trends continue. Employers and Trusts must be made aware that following such flawed policies places them at risk of breaching equality laws and employment protections.
In contrast to the divisive and unsubstantiated messaging promoted by the BMA, UMAPs and CMAPs have taken proactive steps to develop nationally standardised Scope of Practice guidance and a MAP-led integration strategy. These resources, including the Base Scope of Practice and Scope Mapping Tool, are designed to provide clarity, consistency, and safety for clinicians, patients, and supervisors alike.
UMAPs & CMAPs are calling for the Leng Review to serve as a definitive turning point for the profession. Key recommendations include:
- Immediate expansion of MAP prescribing responsibilities and recognition of imaging request capabilities.
- Establishment of a nationalised post-qualification training and supervision framework.
- Creation of a MAPs Mental Health Hub and CMAPs-backed counselling service.
- Independent review of existing scope of practice documents for discriminatory impact.
- Inclusion of MAPs in national workforce planning and decision-making.
UMAPs remains open to constructive dialogue with professional stakeholders and invites the BMA to re-centre its focus on the wellbeing of all healthcare workers, including junior doctors, many of whom are also affected by poor workplace culture and training conditions. The current climate must not be used as a wedge to divide colleagues who ultimately serve the same patients.
“We urge the BMA and other antiMAP pressure groups to abandon its destructive campaign and engage in evidence-based discourse. Our shared focus must be improving patient care, not entrenching outdated hierarchies. History will not look kindly on those who sought to sacrifice workforce stability for ideological gain.”
ENDS
Media Enquiries:
UMAPs Communications Office
Email: press@umaps.org.uk
Website: www.umaps.org.uk
