A row erupted today over plans to introduce regulation for physician associates.

There are 1,700 associates working in primary care in England – and under new laws they will be regulated by the General Medical Council. Yesterday the Government said it was about to lay an order before Parliament enabling the GMC to proceed with regulation.

Medical organisations have raised concerns about the plans, warning that associates are too easily confused with doctors, and the British Medical Association last night criticised the proposals as a “slap in the face”.

Health Secretary Victoria Atkins, said: “Physician Associates and Anaesthesia Associates are already making a great contribution to the NHS, supporting doctors to provide faster high quality care for patients. This new legislation paves the way for these professionals to be held to the same strict standards as doctors, boosting patient safety.”

NHS England Workforce, Training and Education cited the support of leading GP Professor Sir Sam Everington, who said, according to NHS England: “We should embrace new avenues into medicine and support the incorporation of these roles into the medical workforce. They are highly valued in primary care by both staff and patients and part of a wider evolution to provide fast, safe care and free up doctors’ time. If we want to tackle the crisis in GP numbers, we should establish a pathway for physician associates to go on to train as doctors and for newly qualified doctors to go straight into five years’ training as GPs.”

BMA chair Professor Phil Banfield said: “For the Government to call this move a “boost” to patient safety, it will feel like another slap in the face for undervalued UK doctors who have spent years patiently explaining why it is exactly the opposite. At every stage we have been clear that the GMC is the wrong regulator for medical associate professionals: it is the body for regulating doctors, which these professionals simply are not. For the Government to press on despite the overwhelming opposition of the medical profession and opposition from patients shows they failing to take seriously the safety concerns that have been raised about the choice of regulator.

“The Government is encouraging a false representation. Patients being told that the people seeing them are regulated by the same body that regulates doctors will make them think they are receiving a doctor’s standard of care. But there is no comparison between the two years of a PA’s training and the four to six years undertaken to qualify as a doctor. Patients deserve to know who is treating them and the standard of care they are going to receive. By supporting the impression that PAs can do everything doctors can do, the Government is opening the way to more patient safety incidents along the tragic lines we have already seen.”

The Royal College of GPs welcomed the progress towards regulation of associates.

Chair Professor Kamila Hawthorne added: “However, there have been some recent notable cases where patients have been unaware that the medical professional treating them was a Physician Associate and not a GP. This legislation must recognise the distinction between PAs and GPs, making it clear that these are ‘additional’ roles, not ‘substitute’ GPs.

“This legislation is a positive step, but it is crucial that rapid action is taken to implement regulation once the legislation has been introduced. Other aspects of the role of PAs in primary care also still need to be addressed. Ensuring that general practice has adequate premises and that there are enough fully qualified GPs to provide appropriate supervision for PAs remain pressing issues