Gillian Leng’s review into the safety and effectiveness of physician associates (PAs) and anaesthesia associates (AAs), published yesterday (16 July), recommended that PAs and AAs be renamed “assistants”, to clarify their supportive function and avoid patient confusion.
The review also suggested that PAs and AAs wear different clothing and badges, so that they are immediately identifiable as different from doctors.
Leng concluded that a clear vision “was largely missing” when the roles were introduced in 2000, resulting in growing “confusion about the roles’ purpose and remit”.
The change of job title recommendation drew criticism from the United Medical Associate Professionals (UMAPs) union, which represents PAs and AAs.
Stephen Nash, the UMAPs’ general secretary, told BBC Breakfast TV presenters: “We’re being demoted to assistant.”
Nash offered advice for HR professionals managing contentious workplace changes, emphasising the importance of understanding the human impact.
He added: “People’s jobs and careers are intrinsically linked with their identity and self-efficacy. Change processes can be divisive and have significant detrimental effects to the mutual trust and confidence held between parties.”
Steve Foulger, director of organisational transformation and people services for the people and risk management firm NFP, agreed with Nash that job title change can be divisive, and acknowledged that “a change in job title can feel like a demotion, even if nothing else changes; even if the wrong job title was in place to start with”.
He said that job titles are the short form of what people do: their purpose, and who they are. “It can identify their position in a business, the hierarchy, their expertise, the function they work in, etc. It sets an expectation of what you can expect from them.
“Getting a job title change wrong enables resistance, anxiety, confusion, and can often mean a false start.”
Nash warned against forcing changes without proper justification: “If the ‘why you want to do something’ is to avoid a little bit of effort that could be changed elsewhere within process or systems management, balance up whether it’s reasonable and proportionate. If the answer is that you wouldn’t want to have to justify it in front of a judge, don’t do it.”
He also stressed that HR professionals should consult employees, explaining that involving employees “may well provide insight you’ve missed, and cure the problem without needing an imposition of changes”.
He added: “Your role is not to impose changes to impress management, it is to protect the organisation from needless conflict by utilising genuine consultation. Aim to engage and problem solve, rather than brute force your opinion.”
