ArticleBMC medicine2026
Development, integration, retention, and career progression of physician associates/assistants in UK NHS hospitals and clinical teams: a multiple-case qualitative study.
Article in BMC medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe NHS has introduced a range of new and extended roles in recent decades. Physician associates / assistants (PAs) have become one of the most politically scrutinised of these roles. In 2024, the UK government-commissioned Leng Review highlighted national concerns around the clarity, governance, supervision, and career development of PAs, but offered limited guidance for NHS organisations to operationalise them. This study, initiated prior to and independent of the Leng Review, examined how NHS hospitals and clinical teams in England and Scotland develop, integrate, retain, and support PAs in practice.
methodsWe conducted a multiple-case qualitative study across five NHS organisations in England and Scotland. Semi-structured interviews (n = 126) and one focus group (n = 8) were undertaken with PAs, consultants, resident doctors, other team members, senior organisational leaders, and stakeholders involved in workforce planning, supervision, and governance. Data were analysed thematically using a framework informed by prior scoping review and organised across macro (system), meso (organisational), and micro (individual/team) levels, with within- and cross-case comparisons.
resultsWe identified 12 themes across macro, meso, and micro levels of the health system. At the macro-system level, labour market dynamics, fluctuating policy and regulatory signals, and wider public and professional debates, influenced organisational confidence in the PA role. At the meso-organisational level, PA role implementation was sometimes driven by well-intentioned local leaders responding to service needs but with short-term business case logics and pragmatic pressures, rather than long-term workforce planning. Governance arrangements were often developed retrospectively and inconsistently communicated. At the micro-team level, PAs' interpersonal skills and contribution to continuity of care were widely valued, though progression remained highly variable and reliant on local supervision and individual negotiation.
conclusionsThe development, integration, retention, and career progression of PAs in hospitals are shaped by interacting system, organisational, team and individual influences. Many of these challenges reflected wider NHS workforce implementation dynamics, rather than features unique to PAs. To continue to support safe, effective, and sustainable use of PAs, and other new and extended roles, organisations and clinical teams need strong workforce planning, local change management processes, and fair career pathways.
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.