Analysis Breaking

Govt’s own analysis says its non-doctor ‘associate’ plan poses HIGH risk for patients

NHS campaign groups have long warned Tory cost-cutting plan supported by Labour is dangerous – now government’s own investigation has confirmed it but Starmer and Streeting pressing ahead regardless

Doctors and health experts have warned for many months that NHS England’s plan, started by the Tories but enthusiastically pushed by Labour in opposition and now in government – even to the point that Starmer whipped peers to defeat an attempt by health campaigners in the House of Lords to kill the plan – to increase the use of ‘associates’ without medical training or even adequate supervision in the NHS instead of doctors poses lethal risk to patients. At least two patients have already died as a result.

The General Medical Council (GMC), responsible for regulating doctors, has also enthusiastically embraced government instructions to regulate the new ‘associate’ roles – a situation so grave that both the British Medical Association (BMA) and a group of anaesthetists are taking the GMC to court over it. The Royal College of Physicians (RCP) has been accused by medics of conflicts of interest and of misleading doctors about the associate roles and was caught on video refusing to answer questions about patient safety.

Despite these serious concerns and the avoidable deaths already caused, the new Labour government continues to push the plan – one of many under so-called ‘integrated care’ designed to cut NHS costs to allow greater profits for private providers.

But now, the previous government’s own analysis of the risks posed by the use of associates has come into the public domain – and it shows high risks for patients treated by associate roles:

Dr Tom Stocks, who posted the above extract from the analysis, said that right-wing Heath Secretary Wes Streeting – under pressure today for giving sensitive NHS information to a former politician with millions invested in the promotion of private healthcare:

knows that Physician Associates are HIGH risk for patients, because that’s the government’s own analysis. But Wes thinks he can duck this scandal, and get away with it.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£3.00
£5.00
£10.00
£50.00
£75.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your support is hugely appreciated.

Your support is hugely appreciated.

Your support is hugely appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.

3 comments

  1. Easier said than done, but if these PA’S are introduced as the norm then everyone should withdraw their consent to be treated by them unless under strict supervision by a qualified doctor.

    Personally I would only allow them to go so far as to dress a wound unsupervised.

  2. I would refuse a Physician Assistant (anaesthesia) to be responsible for me during surgery, the risk that would not wake up from a general anaesthesia are very much increased.
    I guess that the Labour government sees this as a saving exercise: the more older people that die earlier the less pensions they need to pay.
    Life expectancy has fallen in the UK while at the same time the age of retirement has increased. The increase has affected more traditional working class roles that require a higher level of physical fitness. For example a 60 years old lecturer can be more efficient that a 30 years old lecturer due to the extra years of experience. The same cannot be say about a builder or a lorry driver.

  3. The whole lot of the greedie MPs are taking monies from those who want to open up our NHS system it’s criminal to be bribed by them but alass we allowed them to do so we must reign in our MPs to be put back to not be able to take these bribes from these people’s

Leave a Reply to Maria VazquezCancel reply

Discover more from SKWAWKBOX

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading