On 13 March an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) of the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) debated five motions on the use of physician associates (PAs) in the NHS.1 Four of the motions, relating to their scope of practice, accountability, evaluation, and how PAs affect the training opportunities of doctors—not just those in formal training programmes—were supported by both the RCP and the Faculty of Physician Associates (FPA). What generated considerable controversy was motion 5, which called for caution in the pace and scale of the rollout of PAs ahead of full regulation being in place. RCP senior leadership decided to take an active stance opposing motion 5 rather than a neutral one, a move that was always going to be a high stakes risk, and so it turned out to be. This was a missed opportunity for senior leadership to show people they were not taking “sides” and were simply facilitating fellows across both sides of the debate to have their say and allowing consensus to emerge. Instead, it created a clear division between the RCP leadership team and the fellows in the audience. A flash point was the way the RCP chose to present summary data, rather than the raw data, of the survey conducted to understand the impact of PAs on the members of the RCP who are unable to vote. When the raw …

中文翻译：

---

RCP 医师协会特别大会结束后接下来会发生什么？

3 月 13 日，皇家内科医师学会 (RCP) 召开了一次特别大会 (EGM)，辩论了关于在 NHS 中使用医师助理 (PA) 的五项动议。1 其中四项动议涉及其执业范围、责任、 RCP 和医师协会 (FPA) 均支持评估以及 PA 如何影响医生的培训机会（而不仅仅是正式培训计划中的培训机会）。引起相当大争议的是第 5 号动议，该动议呼吁在全面监管到位之前谨慎对待 PA 的推出速度和规模。 RCP 高级领导层决定采取积极立场反对第 5 号动议，而不是中立动议，这一举动始终会带来高风险，事实证明也是如此。对于高层领导来说，这是一个错失的机会，他们可以向人们表明，他们没有偏袒“一方”，而只是在促进辩论双方发表意见并达成共识。相反，它在 RCP 领导团队和观众之间建立了明确的界限。一个闪点是RCP选择提供汇总数据而不是原始数据的方式，该调查是为了了解PA对无法投票的RCP成员的影响而进行的。当生...