ArticleBMJ open2024
Comparing physician associates and foundation year 1 doctors-in-training undertaking emergency medicine consultations in England: a quantitative study of outcomes.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact of physician assistants on quality of care: rapid review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Pooled it
- Left Without Being Seen: A Scoping Review of a Silent Crisis in Emergency Departments.Open access emergency medicine : OAEM · 2026Review
- Developing and integrating physician assistants/associates in UK hospital teams: a realist review of lessons from international experiences.BMC medicine · 2025Review
- Doctors', Patients' and Physician Associates' Perceptions of the Physician Associate Role in the Emergency Department.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the contribution of physician associates (PAs) to the outcomes of emergency medicine consultations with that of foundation year 1 doctors-in-training (FY1s).
designA 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.
settingOne emergency department (ED) in England.
participantsThe 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.
resultsPAs 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).
conclusionPAs 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.
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.