Failure to inform patients about clinicians’ qualifications and experience
First to latest report 24 Feb 2025 — 17 Sep 2025
Reports that mention this concern
2
Times this concern has been raised
3
Stated actions linked to this concern
8
What this concern includes
Includes failures by healthcare providers to disclose clearly and appropriately to patients or their families the clinician’s professional qualification or status and materially relevant experience where that information affects informed care decisions, expectations of competence or the ability to seek an appropriate second opinion.
What is not included
Excludes failures to verify or credential clinicians internally before independent practice; those belong to clinician competence or credentialing concerns.
Excludes misuse or lack of legal protection for healthcare professional titles where patient disclosure is not the deficient control.
Excludes general Duty of Candour, transparency or complaint-handling failures that do not concern disclosure of the involved clinician’s qualifications, professional status or relevant experience.
Excludes disclosure of routine staff identity, grade or role where qualifications or materially relevant experience are not the safety-relevant information.
Trends
Reports over time
Reports mentioning this concern, over time
Reports about this concern issued each year.
* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.
Most frequent recipients
Most frequent recipients
Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.
Care Quality Commission2
Department of Health and Social Care2
Association Of Anaesthetists (Great Britain & Ireland)1
Difficult Airway Society1
General Medical Council1
Goring Hall Hospital1
NHS England1
NHS Surrey and Sussex Integrated Care Board1
Royal College of Anaesthetists1
Royal College of Emergency Medicine1
Royal College of Physicians1
Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust1
Sussex Medical Chambers Limited1
Health and social care service regulator2
Ministerial department2
Executive non-departmental public body1
Health and care professional regulator1
Healthcare site1
Health professional body1
Independent healthcare provider1
Integrated care board1
NHS trust1
Registered charity1
Reports and published responses 2 reports
See individual reports that have raised this concern, and the actions taken in response
West Sussex, Brighton and Hove
Concerns raised1
Failure to fully inform patients of clinicians’ relevant experience
This report raised 10 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked responses
Circle Health Group
Goring Hall Hospital
Sussex Medical Chambers
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
Circle Health Group and Goring Hall Hospital
Publish personal profiles for consultants on the hospital website, alongside GMC Specialist Register information, to provide patients with transparent experience information.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.3
Circle Health Group and Goring Hall Hospital
CHG disputes breaching the statutory duty of candour, relying on consultant profiles and GMC registration information as transparent disclosures to patients.
Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Circle Health Group and Goring Hall Hospital
CHG considers no additions or changes to its current practising-privileges and transparency processes necessary.
No action considered necessaryThe respondent said that no further action was needed.
Sussex Medical Chambers
Further information about clinicians' experience and competency cannot be provided because of confidentiality constraints.
Unable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
Surrey
Concerns raised2
Failure to clearly explain and differentiate the Physician Associate role from medically qualified practitioners
Failure to inform patients and families that Physician Associates are not medically qualified
This report raised 8 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked responses
Care Quality Commission
Department of Health and Social Care
General Medical Council
NHS England
Royal College of Emergency Medicine
Royal College of Physicians
Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.7
NHS England
Publish a summary of existing guidance on deploying medical associate professionals.
Royal College of Emergency Medicine
Issue a position statement setting standards for Physician Associate supervision, identification, patient selection and regulation.
Royal College of Physicians
Publish interim guidance requiring physician associates to explain their roles, supervision and educational or clinical background to patients, families, carers and colleagues.
Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust
Identify Physician Associates through distinctive clothing, lanyards, and explicit introductions that clarify they are not doctors.
Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust
Install Emergency Department signage identifying clinical team members by their scrub colours.
General Medical Council
Clearly distinguish doctors, physician associates and anaesthesia associates on public registers and in register searches.
Royal College of Physicians
Clearly communicate that physician associates are not doctors and must not replace doctors.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.5
Care Quality Commission
Public terminology, role understanding and second-opinion rights fall outside the regulatory scope.
Outside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
Care Quality Commission
The General Medical Council is best placed to address public terminology, role understanding and second-opinion rights.
Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Department of Health and Social Care
Existing NICE and GMC standards require healthcare professionals to identify their role to patients, addressing role-identification concerns.
Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust
“Physician Associate” is a nationally sanctioned term describing healthcare professionals with recognised training, rather than an inherently misleading title.
Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust
The Trust considers that it has explained everything within its remit regarding patients’ and families’ ability to seek a second medical opinion.
Outside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.
Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.