A legal case against the GMC over its refusal to set an official scope of practice for physician associates will be heard at the High Court in mid-May.
Anaesthetists United (AU), the group bringing the judicial review against the GMC, confirmed yesterday that the judge has set the date for the hearing as 13 May, and it will last one and a half days.
A High Court judge granted the group ‘permission’ to proceed to judicial review last month, and also ruled that the case should be ‘expedited’, with a hearing taking place no letter than 23 May.
This was on the basis that AU’s claim ‘raises serious issues of importance’ to healthcare professionals and patients.
The legal case is aiming to achieve ‘clear and enforceable guidance’ setting out what PAs and anaesthesia associates (AAs) ‘can and cannot do’, and argues that the GMC has a statutory duty to set those standards.
AU brought the case along with co-claimants Marion and Brendan Chesterton, the parents of Emily Chesterton, a patient at North London GP practice who died at the end of 2022 after seeing a PA.
The BMA has also offered financial support by providing indemnity to protect the claimants from the risk of financial loss arising from the claim, and the union has been listed as an ‘interested party’.
AU, which has so far raised just under £170,000 to fund its legal case, is currently aiming to raise an additional £150,000 to cover its costs for the full High Court hearing.
The group’s update yesterday said: ‘We’ve asked the Royal Medical Colleges and other learned institutions to support us publicly. After all, they are asking for the same as we are. But many of them are simply too worried about their reputational risks to endorse us publicly.’
In response, the GMC confirmed the hearing dates but emphasised that a determination ‘has not yet taken place’.
A spokesperson said: ‘We note that Anaesthetists United Limited has been given permission to apply for judicial review of how the GMC regulates physician associates and anaesthesia associates.
‘The substantive determination of the claim has not yet taken place. A hearing will take place at the High Court on Tuesday 13 and Wednesday 14 May.
‘We have made it very clear we will recognise and regulate doctors, PAs and AAs as three distinct professions. We have also been consistent in saying that, as their regulator, we will expect PAs and AAs to always work under supervision and to practise within their competence. They will have a responsibility to clearly communicate who they are, and their role in the team.’
Last year, the GMC was clear that it will not itself set out a scope of practice, but will ‘have reference’ to guidance produced by royal colleges in its fitness-to-practise proceedings.
However, a letter to the RCGP published before Christmas revealed that the GMC had concerns about royal colleges ‘dissuading’ GP practices from employing physician associates with their own ‘restrictive’ scopes of practice.
A Government-commissioned review into the safety of physician associates is currently looking at scope of practice, including if and when an ‘enhanced’ scope might be appropriate.
Everyone works within our scope of training and competence. I find it incredible that the GMC needs a high court judge without any medical training to mark out the scope for them. This organisation is seriously poor.