The contribution of physician associates or assistants to the emergency department: A systematic scoping review

Doctors', Patients' and Physician Associates' Perceptions of the Physician Associate Role in the Emergency Department

INTRODUCTION

The Emergency Department (ED) has seen increased patient attendance and difficulty meeting demands. New healthcare professions such as Physician Associates (PAs) are being utilised to complement the existing medical workforce. Despite the growth of their professions in the United Kingdom, little evidence is available about the perceptions of their roles.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to provide evidence of doctors', PAs' and patients' perceptions of the PA role in the UK ED.

METHODS

A mixed methods approach consisted of the following: 1. An online exploratory survey of ED doctors at one English ED over 1 month (February-March 2022). 2. Post consultation semi-structured patient questionnaires over 2 weeks (April 2022). 3. Semi-structured virtual interviews with ED consultants across the four regions of the United Kingdom (3 months in 2022). 4. Semi-structured virtual interviews with ED PAs across the four regions of the United Kingdom (3 months in 2022). The analysis methods that were used included frequency counts and percentages from closed questions, and hybrid thematic analysis of free text and interview transcripts.

RESULTS

Four ED consultants and four ED PAs across the United Kingdom were interviewed. Twenty-eight ED doctors participated in the online survey. Fifty-seven patients completed the post consultation questionnaire. Four main themes (PAs being fit for purpose; patient recognition of PAs, PAs providing continuity of care, and future PAs and regulation) were deduced as per the General Medical Council, Good Medical Practice domains (knowledge, skills and development; patients, partnership and communication; colleagues, culture and safety; and trust and professionalism). Other subthemes were induced via hybrid thematic analysis. In this study, doctors and patients had mixed comments about the role of PAs. Most of them were positive as doctor participants perceived PAs to be knowledgeable, highly skilled, with mostly good communication skills, team players, providing continuity of care and overall being fit for purpose. However, some doctor participants commented negatively about PAs for providing little quality healthcare and being inexperienced. There was a desire for career progression among the PA participants and a need to work to their full potential. Although the clinicians of this study displayed a clear understanding of the PA role in the ED, a high frequency of surveyed patients mistook PAs for doctors. It was suggested that future PAs could complete a postqualification programme in emergency medicine, combine roles, be paid on an alternative scale and be formally regulated.

CONCLUSION

In this study, mixed views were expressed by ED consultants, ED junior doctors and patients regarding the role of the PA in the ED. Stakeholders can use the information presented to develop a better understanding of the perceptions of the PA role within the UK ED.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) group, led by Healthwatch, made significant contributions to the study's design by providing valuable feedback on the information sheets and consent forms utilised. The patients' responses helped guide the study's direction and shape its future work. As part of the dissemination activities, the study findings was shared with both the PPIE team and Healthwatch media production team.

Comparing physician associates and foundation year 1 doctors-in-training undertaking emergency medicine consultations in England: a quantitative study of outcomes

OBJECTIVES

To compare the contribution of physician associates (PAs) to the outcomes of emergency medicine consultations with that of foundation year 1 doctors-in-training (FY1s).

DESIGN

A quantitative study using retrospective chart review of adult patients seen by PAs or FY1s from August 2018 to January 2020 using 16 months of anonymised clinical record data.

SETTING

One emergency department (ED) in England.

PARTICIPANTS

The outcomes of 7405 patients seen by 11 PAs and 7 FY1s were recorded, with n=4580 PAs and n=2825 FY1s having complete records.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The study aimed to evaluate wait times to consultation as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS), patients leaving without being seen (LWBS) and unplanned returns to the ED within 72 hours with the same complaint.

RESULTS

PAs working in an ED in England treated patients mainly in Majors and Resus and saw more patients out of hours compared with FY1s. Following adjustments for confounding factors, there was no significant difference in wait times to consultation between those PAs or FY1s patients (116 min vs 109 min, respectively, p=0.84). Patients seen by PAs versus FY1s had a significantly longer LOS (52 min); 237 min vs 185 min, p<0.001 (95% CI 45.03 to 59.67). LWBS rates (n=89; 1.94% for PAs vs n=34; 1.2% for FY1s) showed no significant difference (p=0.073). Unplanned reattendance rates patients within 72 hours with the same presenting complaint showed no difference between PAs and FY1s (n=261 (5.70%) vs n=128 (4.58%), respectively, p=0.167).

CONCLUSION

PAs working in an ED in England managed patients with a range of conditions with a similar level of impact on three emergency medicine outcome measures as FY1s (wait times to consultation, numbers of patients LWBS or returning within 72 hours with the same presenting complaint). However, patients seen by PAs had a longer LOS.

A comparison of the practice patterns of emergency department teams that include physicians, nurse practitioners, or physician assistants

BACKGROUND

Physicians see most emergency department (ED) patients, but, recently, nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) have provided an increasing amount of ED care.

PURPOSE

Compare NP and PA teams' practice patterns to physician teams in EDs.

METHODS

Using 12 years of data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (2009-2020), we used multivariate regression analysis to separately examine the associations between the ED practice patterns (i.e., number of diagnostic services, number of procedures, waiting time, boarding time, length of visit, and hospital admission) of patients seen by NP or PA teams compared with physician teams.

DISCUSSION

Patient visits to NP and PA teams received fewer diagnostic services and procedures, had shorter visits, and were less likely to be hospitalized.

CONCLUSION

If the additional diagnostic services, procedures, and hospital admission provided by physician teams were unnecessary for the patients studied, NP and PA team care could be more efficient.