Observational studyThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2015
Physician associates and GPs in primary care: a comparison.
Observational study in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
37 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The impact of Medical Associate Professions (MAPs) on the productivity, quality of care, patient and healthcare workforce satisfaction, and budget implications in various healthcare settings: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2025Pooled it
- Impact of physician assistants on quality of care: rapid review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Pooled it
- Physician associates and anaesthetic associates in UK: rapid systematic review of recent UK based research.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Pooled it
- Public perception of the physician associate profession in the UK: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2024Pooled it
- Physician associate/assistant contributions to cancer diagnosis in primary care: a rapid systematic review.BMC health services research · 2021Pooled it
- More Than a Role Dispute: Physician Associates and the Changing Grounds of Medical Authority.Sociology of health & illness · 2026Article
- Review
- Review
- Observational
- Article
- Use of an electronic consultation system in an inner city general practice: a mixed-methods service evaluation.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Ideas, concerns, expectations, and effects on life (ICEE) in GP consultations: an observational study using video-recorded UK consultations.BJGP open · 2023Article
- Primary care trainee nursing associates in England: a qualitative study of higher education institution perspectives.Primary health care research & development · 2023Article
- The roles of physician associates and advanced nurse practitioners in the National Health Service in the UK: a scoping review and narrative synthesis.Human resources for health · 2022Article
- The role of the physician associate: an overview.Irish journal of medical science · 2022Review
- Strategies to implement SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care testing into primary care settings: a qualitative secondary analysis guided by the Behaviour Change Wheel.Implementation science communications · 2021Article
- Physician associates advance patient safety.Future healthcare journal · 2021Article
- Physician associates: an asset for physician training and a 21st-century NHS?Future healthcare journal · 2020Article
- Article
- 'I'm sorry to hear that'-Empathy and Empathic Dissonance: the Perspectives of PA Students.Medical science educator · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPhysician associates [PAs] (also known as physician assistants) are new to the NHS and there is little evidence concerning their contribution in general practice.
aimThis study aimed to compare outcomes and costs of same-day requested consultations by PAs with those of GPs. DESIGN AND
settingAn observational study of 2086 patient records presenting at same-day appointments in 12 general practices in England.
methodPA consultations were compared with those of GPs. Primary outcome was re-consultation within 14 days for the same or linked problem. Secondary outcomes were processes of care.
resultsThere were no significant differences in the rates of re-consultation (rate ratio 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.86 to 1.79, P = 0.25). There were no differences in rates of diagnostic tests ordered (1.08, 95% CI = 0.89 to 1.30, P = 0.44), referrals (0.95, 95% CI = 0.63 to 1.43, P = 0.80), prescriptions issued (1.16, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.53, P = 0.31), or patient satisfaction (1.00, 95% CI = 0.42 to 2.36, P = 0.99). Records of initial consultations of 79.2% (n = 145) of PAs and 48.3% (n = 99) of GPs were judged appropriate by independent GPs (P<0.001). The adjusted average PA consultation was 5.8 minutes longer than the GP consultation (95% CI = 2.46 to 7.1; P<0.001); cost per consultation was GBP £6.22, (US$ 10.15) lower (95% CI = -7.61 to -2.46, P<0.001).
conclusionThe processes and outcomes of PA and GP consultations for same-day appointment patients are similar at a lower consultation cost. PAs offer a potentially acceptable and efficient addition to the general practice workforce.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.