Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

{{metadata.Title}}

{{metadata.Headline}}

The study found that physician assistants (PAs) are acceptable, effective and efficient in complementing the work of general practitioners (GPs) in the English primary health-care workforce. PAs were judged competent and safe for the case mix of patients they attended, through consultation record review and observations. Patients reported high levels of satisfaction with PAs as well as with GPs although wished to ensure choice and continuity in primary care professional they consulted. PAs offer another source of mid-level practitioners that should be included in health service workforce planning. Consideration should be given to the appropriate level of regulation for PAs, with the attendant potential to be given the authority to prescribe medicines; this would maximise their contribution within primary care.

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index < metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

Vari M Drennan,1,* Mary Halter,1 Sally Brearley,1 Wilfred Carneiro,2 Jonathan Gabe,3 Heather Gage,4 Robert Grant,1 Louise Joly,1 Simon de Lusignan,5 

1 Faculty of Health, Social Care and Education, Kingston University and St George’s University of London, London, UK
2 Directorate of Corporate Affairs, St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
3 Centre for Criminology and Sociology, Royal Holloway, University of London, London, UK
4 School of Economics, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
5 Department of Health Care Management and Policy, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
* Corresponding author ; Email:

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue:{{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}

https://dx.doi.org/{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation: {{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al.' : ''}} {{metadata.Title}}. {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

You might also be interested in:
{{classification.Category.Concept}}

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

An error has occurred in processing the XML document

 

Responses to this report

 

No responses have been published.

If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below.

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 2 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions