AAGBI POSITION Statement

Anaesthesia Practitioner Project – Supplement to previous position statements

In September 2006 the Association of Anaesthetists and The Royal College of Anaesthetists published a supplement to its earlier joint statement on the Anaesthesia Practitioner (AP) project. Those statements confirmed both bodies’ support for the programme as it had been developed under the guidance of the National Stakeholder Board for Anaesthesia Practitioners.

The AP project, set up to expand the workforce, was part of the National Practitioner Programme that also included specialties other than anaesthesia. The curriculum for the AP project was developed by the College in partnership with the Association and the Universities of Birmingham, Hertfordshire, Hull and was later adopted by the University of Edinburgh.

We have recently learnt from the National Practitioner Programme Implementation Group (NPPIG) that the funding stream for England and Wales will be cut off from 1st April 2007; in Scotland support for a programme assessing the Physician’s Assistant – Anaesthesia (the term used in Scotland for the AP role) will continue until at least 2009. It has been recognised by the NPPIG that the consequences of the loss of funding in England and Wales will be that the route to recognition of the title Anaesthesia Practitioner and formal registration with a UK regulating body, such as the Health Professions Council, will now be lost together with the national forum determining standards, education and safe practice. This may encourage departments to recognise, and individuals to identify themselves as, “anaesthesia practitioners”, regardless of training or competence, and will exacerbate the current confused situation for patients, employers and healthcare colleagues.

The risk that alternative approaches may be considered by some employers, such as locally developed roles and the employment of overseas-trained staff such as nurse anaesthetists is now a real threat. With the loss of the AP programme, there will therefore be no method for the robust assessment of the role neither as a whole, nor of any individual AP, nor of accreditation. It is only through continued support, including funding, for the existing nationally recognised AP programme that appropriate training, assessment and employment, consistent with patient safety, can be assured.

Patient safety has been of paramount importance in all stages of development of the AP programme and any deviation from the agreed and recognised training may endanger that principle. We only support the training or employment of APs, from those within the nationally approved AP programme and validated by the Universities of Birmingham, Hertfordshire, Hull and Edinburgh.

For the avoidance of confusion the College and the Association do not support any alternative strategies, and advise all fellows, members and employers against being involved in any such initiatives.

If anyone requires any further advice on this issue please contact either body.

Dr Judith Hulf, President, The Royal College of Anaesthetists

Dr David Whitaker, President, The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland

> View Previous Statement

For information please contact Claire Elliott, Communications Officer, 020 7631 8817, press@aagbi.org