Submitted by the Association of Anaesthesia Associates 23/6/2026
Introduction
The Association of Anaesthesia Associates (AAA) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the consultation on reforming the General Medical Council's legislative framework.
As the representative body for Anaesthesia Associates (AAs), we support the proposal to provide statutory protection for the title "Anaesthesia Associate". However, we do not support replacing the existing title with "Physician Assistant in Anaesthesia" or "Physician Assistants in Anaesthesia".
In our view, the current title is established, widely recognised within healthcare systems, and accurately reflects the profession's role, scope of practice, and regulatory status. We have not identified any evidence demonstrating that a change of title is necessary, nor evidence that such a change would improve patient understanding, patient safety, professional practice, workforce integration, or public confidence.
The independent review of Anaesthesia Associates did not identify the title "Anaesthesia Associate" as a patient safety concern. In the absence of evidence demonstrating a clear benefit, we do not believe that changing the title is justified. If improving public understanding is an objective of the proposal, this should be assessed through formal patient engagement and consultation rather than assumed.
We therefore recommend that statutory protection be applied to the existing title "Anaesthesia Associate" and that the current title is retained.
Position and Recommendations
Our position is that the title "Anaesthesia Associate" should be retained and protected in legislation.
We recommend that:
• The title "Anaesthesia Associate" is retained.
• Statutory protection is applied to the existing title.
• The proposed title "Physician Assistant in Anaesthesia" is not adopted.
• Any future proposal to change the title is supported by evidence demonstrating a measurable benefit for patient understanding, patient safety, or healthcare delivery.
• Any proposed changes to professional titles are subject to meaningful engagement with patients, employers, educational institutions, regulators, and members of the profession.
1. Lack of Evidence Supporting a Title Change
Any proposal to change the title of a regulated healthcare profession should be supported by a clear rationale and a robust evidence base.
We have not seen evidence demonstrating that the current title causes patient confusion, undermines patient safety, creates workforce difficulties, or impedes understanding of the profession. Equally, we have not seen evidence that replacing the title with "Physician Assistant in Anaesthesia" would improve any of these outcomes.
The title "Anaesthesia Associate" has been used consistently across NHS organisations, educational programmes, workforce planning, professional guidance, and regulatory frameworks. It is recognised by employers, clinicians, educators, and regulators. A significant change to professional nomenclature should only be undertaken where there is a clearly identified problem and evidence that the proposed solution will address that problem.
The independent review of Anaesthesia Associates did not identify the title itself as a patient safety issue. While the review considered broader matters relating to professional practice, supervision, and governance, it did not conclude that the existing title was contributing to patient harm or misunderstanding.
In the absence of such evidence, it is difficult to identify what problem the proposed title change is intended to solve.
Policy decisions affecting professional identity, regulation, and public understanding should be evidence-led. A title change should not proceed unless there is clear evidence that the proposed alternative would produce better outcomes than the current title.
2. Regulation, Professional Accountability and Patient Safety
Anaesthesia Associates are regulated healthcare professionals registered with the General Medical Council.
Patient safety and public confidence are supported through a combination of statutory regulation, educational standards, defined scopes of practice, professional accountability, supervision requirements, and continuing professional development.
These safeguards exist independently of the professional title itself.
We are not aware of any evidence demonstrating that changing the title from "Anaesthesia Associate" to "Physician Assistant in Anaesthesia" would strengthen these safeguards or improve patient safety outcomes.
The title of a profession is only one component of a wider regulatory framework. Public protection is primarily achieved through effective regulation, professional standards, transparent governance arrangements, and adherence to defined scopes of practice.
The key determinants of safe care are therefore the competence of practitioners, the clarity of professional standards, and the effectiveness of supervision arrangements rather than changes in professional nomenclature.
For this reason, we do not believe that the proposed title change would deliver measurable improvements in patient safety or public protection.
3. Clarity, Public Understanding and Informed Consent
A central objective of any professional title should be to support transparency and help patients understand who is involved in their care.
The title "Anaesthesia Associate" clearly identifies both the professional group and the specialty in which they practise. It accurately reflects the role's established position within anaesthetic services and aligns with current regulatory and educational structures.
The proposed title "Physician Assistant in Anaesthesia" does not necessarily provide greater clarity to patients. Indeed, there is a significant risk that it may create additional confusion.
The term "physician assistant" already has established meanings in healthcare systems internationally and is commonly associated with different professional roles. Introducing this terminology into anaesthetic practice may create uncertainty regarding professional identity, educational background, scope of practice, and regulatory status.
Patients should be able to understand who is delivering their care without needing detailed explanations of professional nomenclature. A title that introduces ambiguity regarding the relationship between different professional groups may undermine rather than enhance transparency.
If improving patient understanding is a stated objective, this should be tested directly through structured patient research. Decisions about professional titles should be informed by evidence regarding patient comprehension rather than assumptions about how terminology may be interpreted.
4. The Meaning of the Term "Assistant"
The inclusion of the word "assistant" raises particular concerns regarding public understanding.
In everyday language, patients generally understand an assistant to be someone who supports another professional in carrying out their work. The term commonly implies a subordinate or supporting function rather than independent professional accountability.
This creates a potential mismatch between public expectations and the reality of Anaesthesia Associate practice.
Anaesthesia Associates are trained healthcare professionals who undertake advanced clinical activities within a defined scope of practice and under appropriate supervision arrangements. Their role includes the delivery of complex elements of anaesthetic care requiring specialist education, assessment, and ongoing professional regulation.
A patient hearing the term "assistant" may reasonably assume that the individual performs primarily administrative or supportive tasks and may not appreciate the level of clinical expertise involved in the role.
The purpose of professional titles should be to improve understanding rather than create misconceptions. A title that risks understating the professional responsibilities, clinical competence, and accountability of practitioners does not support transparency or informed consent.
For this reason, we do not believe that reintroducing the term "assistant" into the title would improve public understanding of the profession.
5. Workforce, Educational and Regulatory Consistency
The title "Anaesthesia Associate" is already embedded across multiple systems and organisations.
It is used within:
• Educational curricula and training programmes.
• Workforce planning documentation.
• NHS employment structures.
• Regulatory frameworks.
• Professional guidance.
• Recruitment materials.
• National workforce datasets.
Changing the title would require extensive amendments across these systems. Such changes would inevitably create a period of transition during which multiple terms may be used simultaneously.
This risks generating confusion among patients, employers, educators, regulators, and healthcare professionals.
Consistency of terminology is particularly important for newly regulated professions. Maintaining a stable professional identity supports workforce development, professional recognition, and public understanding.
The burden of implementing a title change should be justified by clear and demonstrable benefits. We have not seen evidence that such benefits exist.
6. Consultation Process and Consistency of Terminology
We note that some organisations have already begun using the proposed terminology before the completion of the formal consultation process.
The widespread adoption of terminology that remains under consultation risks creating inconsistency across healthcare organisations and professional bodies.
This may contribute to uncertainty among patients, employers, and staff regarding the current and future status of the profession.
It may also risk creating a perception that the outcome of the consultation has already been determined, which could undermine confidence in the consultation process itself.
We believe that changes of this significance should only be implemented following completion of the consultation process, consideration of stakeholder responses, and publication of a final decision.
Conclusion
We support statutory protection of the title "Anaesthesia Associate" and welcome measures that strengthen public protection and professional regulation.
The current title accurately reflects the profession's role, is embedded across regulatory and workforce systems, and provides a clear and distinct professional identity.
We therefore recommend that:
• The title "Anaesthesia Associate" is retained.
• Statutory protection is applied to the existing title.
• The proposed title "Physician Assistant in Anaesthesia" is not adopted.
• Any future proposals for title changes are supported by robust evidence and meaningful patient engagement.
In our view, retaining the title "Anaesthesia Associate" best supports clarity, transparency, professional identity, and public confidence.
