Physician Assistant: A Guide to Clinical

Practice 6th Edition Edition Ruth

Ballweg - eBook PDF
Go to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebooksecure.com/download/physician-assistant-a-guide-to-clinical-practice-eb
ook-pdf/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Physician Assistant: A Guide to Clinical Practice 6th

Edition (eBook PDF)

http://ebooksecure.com/product/physician-assistant-a-guide-to-
clinical-practice-6th-edition-ebook-pdf/

Ballweg's Physician Assistant: A Guide to Clinical

Practice 7th Edition Tamara S Ritsema - eBook PDF

https://ebooksecure.com/download/ballwegs-physician-assistant-a-
guide-to-clinical-practice-ebook-pdf/

LANGE Q&A Physician Assistant Examination 8th Edition-

eBook PDF

https://ebooksecure.com/download/lange-qa-physician-assistant-
examination-eighth-edition-ebook-pdf/

Physician Assistant Examination 7th Edition Rachel

Carlson - eBook PDF

https://ebooksecure.com/download/physician-assistant-examination-
ebook-pdf/
(eBook PDF) Corporate Communication: A Guide to Theory
and Practice 6th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-corporate-communication-
a-guide-to-theory-and-practice6th-edition/

(eBook PDF) Physician Practice Management 2nd Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-physician-practice-
management-2nd-edition/

(eBook PDF) Principles of Athletic Training: A Guide to

Evidence-Based Clinical Practice 16th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-principles-of-athletic-
training-a-guide-to-evidence-based-clinical-practice-16th-
edition/

(eBook PDF) Principles of Athletic Training: A Guide to

Evidence-Based Clinical Practice 17th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-principles-of-athletic-
training-a-guide-to-evidence-based-clinical-practice-17th-
edition/

Breastfeeding : A Guide for the Medical Professional

9th Edition Ruth A. Lawrence - eBook PDF

https://ebooksecure.com/download/breastfeeding-a-guide-for-the-
medical-professional-ebook-pdf/
PHYSICIAN
ASSISTANT A Guide to Clinical Practice

SIXTH
EDITION

Ruth Ballweg, MPA, PA-C Emeritus, DFAAPA

Professor Emeritus
Department of Family Medicine
University of Washington School of Medicine
Seattle, Washington
Director of International Affairs
National Commission on Certification of Physician Assistants
Johns Creek, Georgia
Darwin Brown, MPH, PA-C, DFAAPA
Physician Assistant Educator
Omaha, Nebraska
Daniel T. Vetrosky, PhD, PA-C, DFAAPA
Associate Professor (Ret.) and Part Time Instructor
University of South Alabama
Department of Physician Assistant Studies
Pat Capps Covey College of Allied Health Professions
Mobile, Alabama
Tamara S. Ritsema, MPH, MMSc, PA-C/R
Assistant Professor
Department of Physician Assistant Studies
George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences
Washington, DC
Adjunct Senior Lecturer
Physician Assistant Programme
St. George’s, University of London
London, United Kingdom
1600 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
Ste 1800
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2899

PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT: GUIDE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE,

SIXTH EDITION ISBN: 978-0-323-40112-8

Copyright © 2018 by Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.

Previous editions copyrighted 2013, 2008, 2003, 1999, 1994 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or
mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without
permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the
Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance
Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.

This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher
(other than as may be noted herein).

Notices

Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience
broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment
may become necessary.
Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluat-
ing and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such
information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including
parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.
With respect to any drug or pharmaceutical products identified, readers are advised to check the
most current information provided (i) on procedures featured or (ii) by the manufacturer of each prod-
uct to be administered, to verify the recommended dose or formula, the method and duration of admin-
istration, and contraindications. It is the responsibility of practitioners, relying on their own experience
and knowledge of their patients, to make diagnoses, to determine dosages and the best treatment for
each individual patient, and to take all appropriate safety precautions.
To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors,
assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability,
negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas
contained in the material herein.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Ballweg, Ruth, editor. | Brown, Darwin, editor. | Vetrosky, Daniel T.,
editor. | Ritsema, Tamara S., editor.
Title: Physician assistant : guide to clinical practice / [edited by] Ruth
Ballweg, Darwin Brown, Daniel T. Vetrosky, Tamara S. Ritsema.
Other titles: Physician assistant (Ballweg)
Description: Edition: sixth. | Philadelphia, PA : Elsevier, [2017] | Includes
bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016053047 | ISBN 9780323401128 (pbk. : alk. paper)
Subjects: | MESH: Physician Assistants | Clinical Competence | Professional
Role | Delivery of Health Care--methods | United States
Classification: LCC R697.P45 | NLM W 21.5 | DDC 610.7372069--dc23 LC record available at
https://lccn.loc.gov/2016053047

Content Strategist: Sarah Barth

Content Development Specialist: Joan Ryan
Publishing Services Manager: Patricia Tannian
Project Manager: Ted Rodgers
Design Direction: Patrick Ferguson

Printed in United States of America

Last digit is the print number: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

 Contributors
David P. Asprey, PhD, BA, BS, MA Anthony Brenneman, MPAS, PA-C
Professor and Program Director Director and Associate Professor
Physician Assistant Program Department of Physician Assistant Studies and
College of Medicine, University of Iowa Services
Iowa City, Iowa Carver College of Medicine
University of Iowa
Ruth Ballweg, MPA, PA-C Emeritus, DFAAPA Iowa City, Iowa
Professor Emeritus
Department Family Medicine Darwin Brown, MPH, PA-C, DFAAPA
University of Washington School of Medicine Formerly Assistant Professor
Seattle, Washington University of Nebraska Medical Center
Director of International Affairs Physician Assistant Program
National Commission on Certification of Physician Omaha, Nebraska
Assistants
Johns Creek, Georgia Michelle Buller, MMS, PA-C
Academic Director/Associate Professor
Kate Sophia Bascombe, BSc, PGDip Physician Assistant Studies Program
Teaching Fellow Union College
Physician Associate Studies Lincoln, Nebraska
St. George’s University of London
Physician Associate Reamer L. Bushardt, PharmD, PA-C, DFAAPA
General Practice Senior Associate Dean for Health Sciences
Glebe Road Surgery Professor, Department of Physician Assistant Studies
London, United Kingdom George Washington University School of Medicine
and Health Sciences
Wallace Boeve, EdD, PA-C Washington, DC
Professor
Program Director Robin N. Hunter Buskey, DHSc, MPAS, PA-C
Physician Assistant Program Senior Physician Assistant
Bethel University U.S. Department of Justice
St. Paul, Minnesota Federal Bureau of Prisons Medical Center
Butner, North Carolina
Jonathan M. Bowser, MS, PA-C
Associate Dean of Physician Assistant Studies at the Jill Cavalet, MHS, PA-C
School of Medicine Clinical Associate Professor
Associate Professor of Pediatrics Physician Assistant Department
Program Director of the Child Health Associate Saint Francis University
Physician Assistant Program Loretto, Pennsylvania
University of Colorado School of Medicine
Denver, Colorado Jeff W. Chambers, PA-C
Physician Assistant
St. Mary’s Health Care System
Athens Regional Medical Center
Athens, Georgia

v
vi Contibutors
Torry Grantham Cobb, MPH, MHS, DHSc,
PA-C
Dartmouth Medical School
Hanover, New Hampshire
Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center
Lebanon, New Hampshire
Roy H. Constantine, PA-C, MPH, PhD
Assistant Director of Mid-Level Practitioners
St. Francis Hospital–The Heart Center
Roslyn, New York
Professor of Health Sciences
Trident University International
Cypress, California
Marci Contreras, MPAS, PA-C
Assistant Professor
Physician Assistant Studies
University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston
(UTMB)
Galveston, Texas
Dan Crouse, MPAS, PA-C
Assistant Professor
Department of Family and Preventive Medicine
Director of Clinical Evaluation, Division of
Physician Assistant Studies
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah
Ann Davis, MS, PA-C
Vice President, Constituent Organization Outreach
and Advocacy
American Academy of Physician Assistants
Alexandria, Virginia
Justine Strand de Oliveira, DrPH, PA-C,
DFAAPA
Professor
Vice Chair for Education
Department of Community and Family Medicine
Professor, Duke School of Nursing
Affiliate Faculty, Duke Global Health Institute
Duke University School of Medicine
Durham, North Carolina
Sondra M. DePalma, MHS, PA-C, CLS,
DFAAPA, AACC
Assistant Director of Advanced Practice
Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center
Physician Assistant and Clinical Lipid Specialist
Penn State Hershey Heart and Vascular Institute
Hershey, Pennsylvania
Christine Everett, PhD, MPH, PA-C
Assistant Professor
Duke Physician Assistant Program
Department of Community and Family Medicine
Duke University School of Medicine
Durham, North Carolina
Jennifer Feirstein, MSPAS, PA-C
Clinical Coordinator and Assistant Professor
Department of Physician Assistant Studies
A.T. Still University
Mesa, Arizona
Christopher P. Forest, MSHS, PA-C, DFAAPA
Director of Research
Assistant Professor of Clinical Family Medicine
Keck School of Medicine
University of Southern California
Division of Physician Assistant Studies
Primary Care Physician Assistant Program
Alhambra, California
April Gardner, MSBS, PA-C
Assistant Professor
Program Director and Academic Coordinator
Department of Physician Assistant Studies
University of Toledo
Toledo, Ohio
Constance Goldgar, MS, PA-C
Associate Professor
University of Utah Physician Assistant Program
Salt Lake City, Utah
Earl G. Greene III
Managing Attorney
Law Offices of Idleman and Greene
Omaha, Nebraska
Noelle Hammerbacher, MS
Freelance Examination Editor/Technical Writer
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Virginia McCoy Hass, DNP, FNP-C, PA-C
Assistant Clinical Professor
Former Director, Nurse Practitioner Program
Former Interim Director, Physician Assistant Program
Betty Irene Moore School of Nursing
Family Nurse Practitioner and Physician Assistant
Programs
Sacramento, California
 Contibutors vii

Erin Hoffman, MPAS, PA-C Bri Kestler, MMS, PA-C

Assistant Professor Assistant Professor
Department of Physician Assistant Education Department of Physician Assistant Studies
University of Nebraska Medical Center University of South Alabama
Omaha, Nebraska Mobile, Alabama
Trenton Honda, MMS, PA-C William C. Kohlhepp, DHSc, PA-C
Director and Assistant Clinical Professor Professor of Physician Assistant Studies
Physician Assistant Program Dean, School of Health Sciences
Northeastern University Quinnipiac University
Boston, Massachusetts Hamden, Connecticut
Theresa Horvath, MPH, PA-C, DFAAPA David H. Kuhns, MPH, PA-C, CCPA, DFAAPA
Program Director Consultant on International Physician Assistant
Physician Assistant Institute Education
University of Bridgeport Advisor to the University of Aberdeen (Scotland)
Bridgeport, Connecticut Physician Assistant Program
Advisor to the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland
Hannah Huffstutler, PA-C, MHS Advisor to the European Physician Assistant
Assistant Professor Cooperative (EuroPAC)
Physician Assistant Studies Adjunct Faculty, Arcadia University Physician
University of South Alabama Assistant Program
Pat Capps Covey College of Allied Health Glenside, Pennsylvania
Professions
Mobile, Alabama Luppo Kuilman, MPA
Program Manager
Emily Joy Jensen, MMSc, PA-C Master Physician Assistant Program
Surgical and Inpatient Physician Assistant School of Health Care Studies
Piedmont Transplant Institute Hanze University of Applied Sciences, Groningen
Piedmont Atlanta Hospital The Netherlands;
Atlanta, Georgia Adjunct Professor
Department of Physician Assistant Studies
James C. Johnson III, MPAS, PA-C College of Health and Human Services
Assistant Professor Northern Arizona University
Department of Physician Assistant Studies Phoenix, Arizona
High Point University
Congdon School of Health Sciences Barbara Coombs Lee, JD, FNP
High Point, North Carolina President
Compassion and Choices
Gerald Kayingo, PhD, PA-C Denver, Colorado
Director for the Master of Health Services-Physician
Assistant Program Susan LeLacheur, DrPH, PA-C
Assistant Clinical Professor Associate Professor of Physician Assistant Studies
Betty Irene School of Nursing at University of School of Medicine and Health Sciences
California, Davis The George Washington University
Sacramento, California Washington, DC
Kathy A. Kemle, MS, PA-C Jason Lesandrini, PhD(c)
Assistant Professor Executive Director of Medical and Organizational
Family Medicine Ethics, Wellstar Health System
Mercer University Adjunct Faculty, Department of Physician Assistant
Macon, Georgia Studies, Mercer University, Atlanta, Georgia
Adjunct Faculty, Department of Physician Assistant
Studies, Philadelphia College of Osteopathic
Medicine, Suwanee, Georgia
viii Contibutors

Rebecca Maldonado, MSHPE, PA-C Debra S. Munsell, DHSC, PA-C, DFAAPA

Associate Program Director Associate Professor
Child Health Associate/Physician Assistant Program Program Director, Master of Physician Assistant
University of Colorado Studies Program
Denver, Colorado Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center
New Orleans, Louisiana
Erin Nicole Lunn McAdams, PA-C, MHS
Assistant Professor Lillian Navarro-Reynolds, MS, PA-C
Department of Physician Assistant Studies Assistant Professor
University of South Alabama Physician Assistant Program
Pat Capps Covey College of Allied Health Oregon Health Sciences University
Professions Portland, Oregon
Mobile, Alabama
Kevin Michael O’Hara, MMSc, MS, PA-C
Nancy E. McLaughlin, MHA, DHSc, PA-C Assistant Professor
Assistant Professor Physician Associate Program
Department of Physician Assistant Studies Yale School of Medicine
Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine New Haven, Connecticut
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Courtney J. Perry, PharmD
Steven Meltzer, BA, BHSc, PA-C Assistant Professor
Director, Outreach and Eastern Washington Department of Physician Assistant Studies
Education Programs Wake Forest School of Medicine
MEDEX Northwest Physician Assistant Program Winston-Salem, North Carolina
University of Washington
Spokane, Washington Ron W. Perry, MS, MPAS, MEd,
DFAAPA, PA-C
Anthony A. Miller, MEd, PA-C Program Director, Interservice Physician Assistant
Professor and Director Program (IPAP)
Division of Physician Assistant Studies Graduate School, Health Readiness Center of
Shenandoah University Excellence
Winchester, Virginia Army Medical Center & School, Joint Base San
Antonio
Margaret Moore-Nadler, DNP, RN San Antonio,Texas
University of South Alabama
College of Nursing Maura Polansky, MS, MHPE, PA-C
Community Mental Health Program Director, Curriculum Development,
Mobile, Alabama Department of Clinical Education
Program Director, Office of Physician Assistant
Dawn Morton-Rias, EdD, PA-C Education
President and CEO The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer
National Commission on Certification of Physician Center
Assistants Houston,Texas
Johns Creek, Georgia
Michael L. Powe, BS
Karen Mulitalo, MPAS, PA-C Vice President, Reimbursement and Professional
Associate Professor Advocacy
Program Director American Academy of Physician Assistants
Division of Physician Assistant Studies Alexandria, Virginia
Department of Family and Preventive Medicine
University of Utah School of Medicine Brenda Quincy, PhD, MPH, PA-C
Salt Lake City, Utah Associate Professor
College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences
Butler University
Indianapolis, Indiana
 Contibutors ix

Michael Rackover, MS, PA-C Craig S. Scott, PhD

Theodore C. Search Emeritus Professor Professor of Biomedical Informatics and Medical
Physician Assistant Program Education
Philadelphia University University of Washington School of Medicine
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Seattle, Washington
Stephanie M. Radix, JD Freddi Segal-Gidan, PhD, PA-C
Senior Director, Constituent Organization Outreach Assistant Clinical Professor of Neurology and
and Advocacy Gerontology
American Academy of Physician Assistants University of Southern California (USC) Keck
Alexandria, Virginia School of Medicine
Los Angeles, California
Scott D. Richards, PhD, PA-C, DFAAPA Director of Rancho/USC California Alzheimer’s
Founding Chair and Director Disease Center (CADC)
Department of Physician Assistant Studies Rancho Los Amigos National Rehabilitation Center
School of Health Sciences Downey, California
Emory & Henry College
Marion, Virginia Edward M. Sullivan, MS, PA-C
Physician Assistant
Robin Risling-de Jong, PA-C, MHS J. Kirkland Grant Obstetrics and Gynecology Practice
Assistant Professor Sunnyvale,Texas
Department of Physician Assistant Studies
University of South Alabama Stephane VanderMeulen, MPAS, PA-C
Mobile, Alabama Associate Professor
Founding Program Director
Tamara S. Ritsema, MPH, MMSc, PA-C Physician Assistant Program
Assistant Professor Creighton University School of Medicine
George Washington University School of Medicine Omaha, Nebraska
and Health Sciences
Washington, DC Daniel T. Vetrosky, PhD, PA-C, DFAAPA
Associate Professor (Ret.) and Part Time Instructor
Elizabeth Rothschild, MMSc, PA-C University of South Alabama
Assistant Professor Department of Physician Assistant Studies
Physician Assistant Division Pat Capps Covey College of Allied Health
Department of Family and Preventive Medicine Professions
Emory University School of Medicine Mobile, Alabama
Atlanta, Georgia
Lisa K. Walker, MPAS, PA-C
Barbara Saltzman, PhD, MPH Director, Physician Assistant Studies Program
Assistant Professor Massachusetts General Hospital Institute of Health
Public Health and Preventive Medicine Professions
University of Toledo College of Medicine and Life Boston, Massachusetts
Sciences
Toledo, Ohio Natalie Walkup, MPAS, PA-C
Assistant Professor
Patty J. Scholting, MPAS, MPH, PA-C Associate Program Director
Assistant Professor Department of Physician Assistant Studies
Physician Assistant Program University of Toledo
University of Nebraska Medical Center Toledo, Ohio
Omaha, Nebraska
Jennifer B. Wall, MSPAS, PA-C
Assistant Professor
Department of Physician Assistant Studies
The George Washington University
Washington, D.C.
x Contibutors
Chantelle Wolpert, PhD, MBA, PA-C, GC
Assistant Professor and Research Coordinator
Department of Physician Assistant Studies
School of Health Sciences
Emory & Henry College
Marion, Virginia
Johnna K. Yealy, MSPAS, PA-C
Physician Assistant Program Director
University of Tampa
Tampa, Florida
Gwen Yeo, PhD
Director Emerita, Senior Ethnogeriatric Specialist
Stanford Geriatric Education Center
Stanford University School of Medicine
Stanford, California
Joseph Zaweski, MPAS, PA-C
Assistant Dean and Program Director
Physician Assistant Program
School of Nursing and Health Professions
Valparaiso University
Valparaiso, Indiana
Olivia Ziegler, MS, PA
Assistant Chief, Academic Affairs
Physician Assistant Education Association
Washington, DC

Thirty-one years ago, doctors were in short sup-
ply. Nurses were even scarcer. The old model of
the doctor, a receptionist, and a laboratory tech-
nician was inadequate to meet the needs of our
increasingly complex society. Learning time had
disappeared from the schedule of the busy doc-
tor. The only solution that the overworked doctor
could envisage was more doctors. Only a doctor
could do doctors’ work. The lengthy educational
pathway (college, medical school, internship, resi-
dency, and fellowship) must mean that only persons
with a doctor’s education could carry out a doctor’s
functions.
I examined in some detail the actual practice of
medicine. After sampling the rich diet of medicine,
most doctors settled for a small area. If the office was
set up to see patients every 10 to 15 minutes and to
charge a certain fee, the practice conformed. If the
outcome was poor, or if the doctors recognized that
the problem was too complex for this pattern of prac-
tice, the patient was referred.
Doctors seeing patients at half-hour or 1-hour
intervals also developed practice patterns and set
fee schedules to conform. The specialists tended to
treat diseases and leave the care of patients to others.
Again, they cycled in a narrow path.
The average doctors developed efficient patterns
of practice. They operated 95% of the time in a habit
mode and rarely applied a thinking cap. Because
they did everything that involved contact with the
patients, time for family, recreation, reading, and
furthering their own education disappeared.
Why this intense personalization of medical prac-
tice? All doctors starting practices ran scared. They
wanted to make their services essential to the well-
being of their patients. They wanted the patient to
depend on them alone. After a few years in this mode,
they brainwashed themselves and actually believed
that only they could obtain information from the
patient and perform services that involved physical
contact with the patient.
During this time I was building a house with my
own hands. I could use a wide variety of materials
and techniques in my building. I reflected on how
inadequate my house would be if I were restricted to
only four materials. The doctor restricted to a slim
support system could never build a practice adequate
to meet the needs of modern medicine. He or she
Foreword
needed more components in the system. The physi-
cian assistant (PA) was born!
Nurses, laboratory technicians, and other health
professionals were educated in their own schools,
which were mostly hospital related. The new prac-
titioner (the PA) was to be selected, educated, and
employed by the doctor. The PA—not being geo-
graphically bound to the management system of the
hospital, the clinic, or the doctor’s office—could
oscillate between the office, the hospital, the operat-
ing room, and the home.
A 2-year curriculum was organized at Duke Medi-
cal School with the able assistance of Dr. Harvey
Estes, who eventually took the program under the
wing of his department of Family and Community
Medicine. The object of the 2-year course was to
expose the student to the biology of human beings
and to learn how doctors rendered services. On
graduation, PAs had learned to perform many tasks
previously done by licensed doctors only and could
serve a useful role in many types of practices. They
performed those tasks that they could do as well as
their doctor mentors. If the mentor was wise, the PA
mastered new areas each year and increased his or
her usefulness to the practice.
Setting no ceilings and allowing the PA to grow
have made this profession useful and satisfying.
Restricting PAs to medical supervision has given
them great freedom. Ideally, they do any part of their
mentors’ practice that they can do as well as their
mentors.
The PA profession has certainly established itself
and is recognized as a part of the medical system. PAs
will be assuming a larger role in the care of hospital
patients as physician residency programs decrease
in size. As hospital house staff, PAs can improve the
quality of care for patients by providing continuity
of care.
Because of the close association with the doctor
and patient and the PAs’ varied duties, PAs have an
intimate knowledge of the way of the medical world.
They know patients, they are aware of the triumphs
and failures of medicine, and they know how doctors
think and what they do with information collected
about patients. For these reasons, they are in demand
by all businesses that touch the medical profession.
One of the first five Duke students recently earned
a doctoral degree in medical ethics and is working in
xi
xii Foreword
education. The world is open, and PAs are grasping
their share.
We all owe a debt of gratitude to the first five stu-
dents who were willing to risk 2 years of their lives
to enter a new profession when there was little sup-
port from doctors, nurses, or government. From the
beginning, patients responded favorably, and each
PA gained confidence and satisfaction from these
interactions. Patients made and saved the profession.
We hope that every new PA will acknowledge this
debt and continue the excellent work of the original
five.
Eugene A. Stead Jr., MD
The late Dr. Stead was the Florence
McAlister Professor Emeritus of Medicine,
Duke University Medical Center, Durham,
North Carolina. This Foreword was published in
the previous edition, and is being reprinted.

Welcome to the sixth edition of Physician Assistant: A
Guide to Clinical Practice!
The sixth edition recognizes that our students
increasingly do not enter PA school with years of expe-
rience as health professionals. Ten new chapters have
been written to provide guidance to students regarding
clinical environments, key pieces of medical knowledge,
and preceptor expectations before they start on each
core rotation and four common elective rotations. We
have also added a new section called “Your Physician
Assistant Career” which provides resources for students
as they near the end of their training. Chapters include
“Leadership Skills for Physician Assistants,” “Be a Phy-
sician Assistant Educator,” “Professional Service” and
an overview article on the future of the profession.
The history and utilization of this publication
mirror the expansion of the physician assistant (PA)
profession. The first edition, published in 1994, was
the first PA textbook to be developed by a major pub-
lisher and was at first considered to be a potential risk
for the company. Ultimately, it came to be seen as a
major milestone for our profession. Our first editor,
Lisa Biello, attended the national PA conference in
New Orleans and immediately saw the potential! She
made a strong case to the W.B. Saunders Co. for the
development of the book. Quickly, other publishers
followed her lead. Now there are multiple PA-spe-
cific textbooks and other published resources for use
in PA programs by practicing physician assistants.
The first edition was written at a time of rapid
growth in the number of PA programs and in the
number of enrolled PA students. Intended primar-
ily for PA students, the textbook was also used by
administrators, public policy leaders, and employers
to better understand the PA role and to create new
roles and job opportunities for PAs.
The second edition was expanded and updated to
reflect the growth of the PA profession.
The third edition included eight new chapters and a
new format. This format included Case Studies, which
illustrated the narrative in “real-life” terms; Clinical
Applications, which provided questions to stimulate
thought, discussion, and further investigation; and a
Resources section, which provided an annotated list of
books, articles, organizations, and websites for follow-
up research. With the third edition, the book became
an Elsevier publication with a W.B. Saunders imprint.
The fourth edition had a totally new look and was
also the first edition with an electronic platform. Most
Preface
important, the textbook’s content was reorganized to
make it more responsive to the new Physician Assis-
tant Competencies, which were approved by all four
major PA organizations in 2006. New sections on
professionalism, practice-based learning and improve-
ment, and systems-based practice address specific top-
ics delineated in the competencies. Sections covering
materials that had become available in other books
(e.g., physical examination and detailed history-tak-
ing skills) were omitted. Significant new material was
added on the international PA movement, profession-
alism, patient safety, health disparities, PA roles in
internal medicine and hospitalist settings, and issues
in caring for patients with disabilities.
The new content for the fifth edition included
chapters on the electronic health record, population-
based practice, the new National Commission on
Certification of Physician Assistants specialty recog-
nition process, health care delivery systems, and mass
casualty/disaster management.
Many PA programs find the textbook useful for
their professional roles course and as a supplement to
other core courses. PA students have found the chap-
ters on specific specialties helpful in preparing for clin-
ical rotations. PA graduates thinking about changing
jobs and encountering new challenges in credentialing
will find a number of relevant examples. All practicing
PAs will find the new material useful as they continue
their lifelong learning in a rapidly changing health care
system. Health care administrators and employers can
benefit from an overview of the profession, as well as
information specific to PA roles and job descriptions.
Policy analysts and health care researchers will find
a wealth of information at the micro and macro lev-
els. Developers of the PA concept internationally will
find what they need to adapt the PA profession in new
settings. Finally, potential PAs can be informed and
inspired by the accomplishments of the profession.
Although Dr. Eugene Stead died in 2005, we
have decided to continue to use the foreword that he
wrote for this book. Encouraged by Dr. Stead and by
countless colleagues, students, and patients, we hope
that this textbook will continue to serve as a signifi-
cant resource and inspiration for the PA profession.
Ruth Ballweg, MPA, PA-C Emeritus, DFAAPA
Darwin Brown, MPH, PA-C, DFAAPA
Daniel Vetrosky, PhD, PA-C, DFAAPA
Tamara Ritsema, MPH, MMSc, PA-C
xiii
 Acknowledgments
As we reach the sixth edition, we want to thank the
many individuals—across time—who have made this
book possible. Much of the success of this book has
had its roots in physician assistant (PA) educational
networks. Not only did we want to create a book that
would be a critical resource for PA students and edu-
cators, but also we wanted to create new publishing
opportunities for many of our colleagues to become
contributors. A major strength of the book has always
been the inclusion of a wide range of faculty mem-
bers from PA programs from all regions in the United
States. We especially want to acknowledge the contri-
bution and leadership of Sherry Stolberg, who served
as our coeditor for the first, second, and third editions,
and Ed Sullivan, who was with us through the fifth
edition. When Sherry and Ed stepped down, Darwin
Brown and Dan Vetrosky were recruited as new coedi-
tors. For this sixth edition, Tamara Ritsema has joined
our group. They have brought new energy, new ideas,
and new contacts to the subsequent editions of the
book, for which we are grateful.
This textbook would not be possible without the
support of our colleagues, students, friends, and
loved ones who have helped us to continue to move
this project ahead. The patience and good humor
of our spouses, Jeanne Brown, Penelope Vetrosky,
and the late Arnold Rosner, have been critical to this
project. Our children, Pirkko Terao, Dayan Ballweg,
and Alex, Tim, and Jackson Brown, provided us with
their valuable opinions and perspectives.
We gratefully acknowledge our editors over time,
including Lisa Biello, Peg Waltner, Shirley Kuhn,
Rolla Couchman, John Ingram, Kate Dimock, and
Sarah Barth, and content development specialists,
Janice Gaillard and Joan Ryan. The input from these
individuals has resulted in the substantial improve-
ments in this publication over time. Although new
authors have joined us for each edition, contributors
to prior editions of this book deserve our apprecia-
tion for their participation.
Physician Assistant: A Guide to Clinical Practice has
benefited from the feedback of PA educators and stu-
dents. We hope you will continue to provide us with
your opinions and suggestions.
xv

Maximizing Your Physician
Assistant Education
CHAPTER OUTLINE
OVERVIEW AND INTRODUCTION
OVERVIEW AND INTRODUCTION
Congratulations on choosing to be a physician assis-
tant (PA) as we celebrate 50 years of the PA profes-
sion! As educators who have also enjoyed clinical
practice as part of our professional roles, we welcome
you to our career and challenge you to explore it
fully during your PA education. As many senior PAs
say, with great enthusiasm: “I had no idea where the
PA career would take me or the many options and
opportunities that would come along. Who knew?”
Our goal is for this sixth edition of Physician
Assistant: A Guide to Clinical Practice is to be both a
textbook and your lifelong “go-to” resource on PAs
and the profession that remains on your bookshelf
throughout your career. In the early days of the PA
profession, there were no textbooks or resources
specifically for PAs. We relied on resources for
physicians and medical students, and faculty mem-
bers photocopied handouts they had developed
individually or that they had borrowed from their
colleagues in other programs. Fortunately, the
Saunders Publishing Company saw the potential
for a PA textbook, and in 1994, the first edition of
this book was released. The editors were pleased to
receive numerous communications from PA stu-
dents expressing enthusiasm, pride, and even relief
that there was “finally a book for PAs” sitting on the
shelves of their college bookstores and libraries.
The early editions of the book were only available
in hard copy. We’re delighted that it’s now available
in both a hard copy and a downloadable version. This
eliminates the need for you to carry around the heavy
printed version of the book and allows you to have
just what you need available on your computer screen
for use in the classroom, study sessions, and clinical
CHAPTER 1
Ruth Ballweg • Daniel T. Vetrosky
KEY POINTS
rotations. You’ll always have it with you! Be sure to
check out the book’s additional features in the online
version.
This edition includes additional primers on how
to best use many of the unique and latest teaching
and learning approaches that are features of a con-
stantly evolving PA educational methodology.
In addition to the skilled faculty members in your
program, whom you know well, you’ll also benefit
from experiences from other faculty members and
health care leaders beyond your own program. We’ve
purposely recruited a wide range of experts from
the United States and several other countries. You
can expect to see even more international involve-
ment in future editions as PA utilization, education,
and regulation expand beyond the U.S. nexus of our
profession.
A lot of the stress of PA education is not knowing
what PAs really do. This book will help with that!
Our goal as editors is to show you a bigger world of
what PAs have been, are currently, and can become.
Some of the chapters are about cutting-edge topics
you didn’t know you’d need. You’ll probably have a
different view about the relevance of these issues by
the time you graduate and start your first job.
You’ll find that you need the book’s various sec-
tions at different times in your education and PA
career. Section I features an overview of our career.
You may find these topics assigned early in your PA
program as your faculty introduce you to PA his-
tory. Although we’ve come a long way in our 50
years, there is still work to do in the further devel-
opment and regulation of PAs in new roles. Section
I will provide you with background about how we
got to where we are. We hope it will inspire you
to consider PA and community leadership roles
3
4 Overview
throughout your career. You’ll learn the principles
behind PA education and why it’s different from
medical school. You’ll find out how to be safe in
clinical settings. You’ll find out the complexities of
how PAs are allowed to work because of PA pro-
gram accreditation, national certification by the
National Commission on Certification of Physician
Assistants (NCCPA), licensure at the state level, and
privileges at the institutional level. You’ll develop
greater understanding of physician–PA supervisory
relationships, and you’ll have appreciation for the
long-term challenges that we faced and continue
to face for appropriate payment for our services.
Finally, you’ll learn about the importance of being
part of an interprofessional team. These first chap-
ters may be especially helpful to share with your
family and friends who may not yet understand as
much as they would like to about the PA profession.
Section II focuses on medical knowledge. This
section is not intended to substitute for the many
outstanding medical textbooks available to all types
of clinical students. Some chapters in Section II are
examples of how this book serves as a resource for
topics and skills you didn’t know you’d need. As PA
educators, we’re proud of our responsibility to design
the PAs of the future. New health care systems will
need PAs who understand evidence-based medicine
and research methodology. Keeping people healthy
becomes more important as more and more people
have access to health care. Common clinical pro-
cedures are included to give some examples of the
broad procedural skill sets of PAs. The description of
PA prescriptive practice has a similar role.
Genetics will play a greater role in medicine and
our genetics chapter provides updated information
that you can integrate into your practice. Other
marketable skill areas this text will enhance include
chapters on chronic care, alternative and compli-
mentary medicine, end-of-life issues and the chang-
ing health care environment.
PAs are known for their outstanding communi-
cation and people skills. Section III is designed to
reinforce the communication experiences that PA
students receive throughout their education and
practice. This section provides important background
about the appropriate use and value of electronic
medical records. Tools such as patient education,
cultural sensitivity, and cultural competence are also
available in this section.
Section IV focuses on clinical rotations. These
chapters are not intended as a substitute for other
textbooks on these medical and surgical specialties
nor are they there to supplant your program’s rota-
tion manuals. For the sixth edition, we’ve asked our
authors to rewrite these chapters to focus specifi-
cally on what a students need to know for each of
these rotations. We’ve included the rotations that
are required by the Accreditation Review Com-
mission on Education for the Physician Assistant
(ARC-PA) as well as examples of the most common
electives. We believe that this section will be espe-
cially popular.
Professionalism is the subject of Section V. Pro-
fessionalism is a hot topic in all clinical education
programs and is often a topic that students may not
have previously considered.
We’ve focused on professionalism as it applies
to PAs specifically. Similarly, this section considers
ethics and malpractice relative to PA practice. The
chapter on stress and burnout describes the issues
of adopting an extremely responsible clinical role in
a relatively short period of time. This section also
recommends strategies for recognizing and manag-
ing these concerns in yourself as well as friends and
colleagues. Finally, this section reviews the issue and
range of postgraduate programs.
Section VII on systems-based practice has several
functions. The initial chapter on health care delivery
systems is designed to provide students with informa-
tion about changes in the health care delivery system,
primarily in response to the regulations concerning
the provision and access to health care as defined by
the Affordable Care Act. This is a rapidly evolving
topic with a range of regional differences. Recogniz-
ing the underlying principles of these changes will
help students and practicing PAs to make employ-
ment decisions about the type of setting in which
they’d be the best fit.
Other chapters in this section have been written
to allow readers to explore settings and populations
where PAs are employed and practice. In addition to
providing background for job choices, this section
is also written to encourage PAs to understand and
appreciate the wide range of employment opportuni-
ties and challenges that are available to PAs.
Finally, Section VIII will help new graduates as
they move into clinical practice. New PAs describe
several years of transition as they move from being
students into the world of clinical practice. It’s rea-
sonable to expect that this transition will take 2 to 3
years. Even in the early stages of a PA career, there
are opportunities to move into leadership and pro-
fessional service. This is a time to think about the
potential of involvement in PA education, as a pre-
ceptor, or as a part- or full-time faculty member.
The last chapter explores our future. As authors
and teachers, we are excited that you will be a part
of it.
 1 Maximizing Your Physician Assistant Education 5

We would like to offer some general pieces of
advice that we hope will further maximize your expe-
rience as a PA student and as a PA:
a. In class and in clinic: go early, stay late.
b. Get to know your faculty members—be transparent.
c. Get to know each of your classmates—schedule a
time with each of them one on one at least once in
the first quarter or semester of school.
d. Stay caught up—pay attention to objectives in
your courses. They’re designed to guide you in
what you need to know and in how to spend your
precious time.
e. Meet as many PAs as you can. They will be role
models and mentors.
f. Most important, learn from you patients.
Again, welcome to this wonderful career!

KEY POINTS
• T he principle and culture of medical and clinical roles is about lifelong learning. We’ve
­designed this book to promote this concept.
• We encourage you to develop a support system of peers, senior mentors, supervising doctors,
and others to serve as a foundation for the long-term decisions that you make about your
career.
• Effective leaders are needed to promote access and health care quality.
• The PA profession has moved ahead because PAs have been willing to say “yes!” to leadership
opportunities. Please consider leadership as part of your PA career.
 CHAPTER 2
History of the Profession and
Current Trends
Ruth Ballweg
CHAPTER OUTLINE
FELDSHERS IN RUSSIA
CHINA’S BAREFOOT DOCTORS
DEVELOPMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES
DEVELOPMENTS AT DUKE UNIVERSITY
CONCEPTS OF EDUCATION AND PRACTICE
MILITARY CORPSMEN
OTHER MODELS
CONTROVERSY ABOUT A NAME
PROGRAM EXPANSION
FUNDING FOR PROGRAMS
ACCREDITATION
What was to become the physician assistant (PA)
profession has many origins. Although it is often
thought of as an “American” concept—recruiting
former military corpsmen to respond to the access
needs in our health care system—the PA has histori-
cal antecedents in other countries. Feldshers in Rus-
sia and barefoot doctors in China served as models
for the creation of the PA profession.
FELDSHERS IN RUSSIA
The feldsher concept originated in the European mil-
itary in the 17th and 18th centuries and was intro-
duced into the Russian military system by Peter the
Great. Armies of other countries were ultimately
able to secure adequate physician personnel; how-
ever, because of a physician shortage, the large num-
bers of Russian troops relied on feldshers for major
portions of their medical care. Feldshers retiring
6
CERTIFICATION
ORGANIZATIONS
American Academy of Physician Assistants
Association of Physician Assistant Programs to
Physician Assistant Education Association
TRENDS
NATIONAL HEALTH POLICY REPORTS
CURRENT ISSUES AND CONTROVERSIES
CONCLUSION
CLINICAL APPLICATIONS
KEY POINTS
from the military settled in small rural communities,
where they continued their contribution to health
care access. Feldshers assigned to Russian communi-
ties provided much of the health care in remote areas
of Alaska during the 1800s.1 In the late 19th century,
formal schools were created for feldsher training, and
by 1913, approximately 30,000 feldshers had been
trained to provide medical care.2
As the major U.S. researchers reviewing the feld-
sher concept, Victor Sidel2 and P.B. Storey3 described
a system in the Soviet Union in which the annual
number of new feldshers equaled the annual number
of physician graduates. Of those included in the feld-
sher category, 90% were women, including feldsher
midwives.3 Feldsher training programs, which were
located in the same institutions as nursing schools,
required 2 years to complete. Outstanding feldsher
students were encouraged to take medical school
entrance examinations. Roemer4 found in 1976 that
25% of Soviet physicians were former feldshers.
 2 History of the Profession and Current Trends
The use of Soviet feldshers varied from rural to
urban settings. Often used as physician substitutes in
rural settings, experienced feldshers had full author-
ity to diagnose, prescribe, and institute emergency
treatment. A concern that “independent” feldshers
might provide “second-class” health care appears to
have led to greater supervision of feldshers in rural
settings. Storey3 describes the function of urban feld-
shers—whose roles were “complementary” rather
than “substitutional”—as limited to primary care
in ambulances and triage settings and not involv-
ing polyclinic or hospital tasks. Perry and Breitner5
compare the urban feldsher role with that of U.S.
physician assistants (PAs): “Working alongside the
physician in his daily activities to improve the physi-
cian’s efficiency and effectiveness (and to relieve him
of routine, time-consuming tasks) is not the Russian
feldsher’s role.”
CHINA’S BAREFOOT DOCTORS
In China, the barefoot doctor originated in the 1965
Cultural Revolution as a physician substitute. In what
became known as the “June 26th Directive,” Chair-
man Mao called for a reorganization of the health
care system. In response to Mao’s directive, China
trained 1.3 million barefoot doctors over the subse-
quent 10 years.6
The barefoot doctors were chosen from rural
production brigades and received their initial 2- to
3-month training course in regional hospitals and
health centers. Sidel2 comments that “the barefoot
doctor is considered by his community, and apparently
thinks of himself, as a peasant who performs some
medical duties rather than as a health care worker
who performs some agricultural duties.” Although
they were designed to function independently, bare-
foot doctors were closely linked to local hospitals for
training and medical supervision. Upward mobility
was encouraged in that barefoot doctors were given
priority for admission to medical school. In 1978,
Dimond7 found that one third of Chinese medical
students were former barefoot doctors.
The use of feldshers and barefoot doctors was
significantly greater than that of PAs in the United
States. Writing in 1982, Perry and Breitner5 noted:
Although physician assistants have received a great
deal of publicity and attention in the United States,
they currently perform a very minor role in the provi-
sion of health services. In contrast, the Russian feldsher
and the Chinese barefoot doctor perform a major role
in the provision of basic medical services, particularly
in rural areas.
7
The “discovery” in the United States that appro-
priately trained nonphysicians are perfectly capable
of diagnosing and treating common medical prob-
lems had been previously recognized in both Russia
and China. We can no longer say that PAs “perform
a very minor role in the provision of health services.”
In contrast, the numbers of both feldshers and bare-
foot doctors have declined in their respective coun-
tries owing to a lack of governmental support and an
increase in the numbers of physicians.
DEVELOPMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES
Beginning in the 1930s, former military corpsmen
received on-the-job training from the Federal Prison
System to extend the services of prison physicians. In
a 4-month program during World War II, the U.S.
Coast Guard trained 800 purser mates to provide
health care on merchant ships. The program was later
discontinued, and by 1965, fewer than 100 purser
mates continued to provide medical services. Both of
these programs served as predecessors to those in the
federal PA training programs at the Medical Cen-
ter for Federal Prisoners, Springfield, Missouri, and
Staten Island University Hospital, New York.
In 1961, Charles Hudson, MD, proposed the PA
concept at a medical education conference of the Amer-
ican Medical Association (AMA). He recommended
that “ assistants to doctors” should work as dependent
practitioners and should perform such technical tasks
as lumbar puncture, suturing, and intubation.
At the same time, a number of physicians in pri-
vate practice had begun to use informally trained
individuals to extend their services. A well-known
family physician, Dr. Amos Johnson, publicized the
role that he had created for his assistant, Mr. Buddy
Treadwell. The website for the Society for the Pres-
ervation of Physician Assistant History provides
detailed information on Dr. Johnson and tells more
about how Mr. Treadwell served as a role model for
the design of the PA career.
By 1965, Henry Silver, MD, and Loretta Ford, RN,
had created a practitioner-training program for bac-
calaureate nurses working with impoverished pedi-
atric populations. Although the Colorado program
became the foundation for both the nurse practitioner
(NP) movement and the Child Health Associate PA
Program, it was not transferable to other institutions.
According to Gifford, this program depended “. . . on
a pattern of close cooperation between doctors and
nurses not then often found at other schools.”8 In
1965, therefore, practical definition of the PA con-
cept awaited establishment of a training program that
could be applied to other institutions.
8 Overview
DEVELOPMENTS AT DUKE UNIVERSITY
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, Eugene Stead,
MD, developed a program to extend the capabilities
of nurses at Duke University Hospital.9 This pro-
gram, which could have initiated the NP movement,
was opposed by the National League of Nursing.
The League expressed the concern that such a pro-
gram would move these new providers from the
ranks of nursing and into the “medical model.”
Simultaneously, Duke University had experience
with training several firemen, ex-corpsmen, and
other non–college graduates to solve personnel
shortages in the clinical services at Duke University
Hospital.9
The Duke program and other new PA programs
arose at a time of national awareness of a health care
crisis. Carter and Gifford10 described the conditions
that fostered the PA concept as follows:
1. An increased social consciousness among many
Americans that called for the elimination of all
types of deprivation in society, especially among
the poor, members of minority groups, and
women
2. An increasingly positive value attached to health
and health care, which produced greater demand
for health services, criticism of the health care
delivery system, and constant complaints about
rising health care costs
3. Heightened concern about the supply of physi-
cians, their geographic and specialty maldistribu-
tion, and the workloads they carried
4. Awareness of a variety of physician extender mod-
els, including the community nurse midwife in
America, the “assistant medical officer” in Africa,
and the feldsher in the Soviet Union
5. The availability of nurses and ex-corpsmen as
potential sources of manpower
6. Local circumstances in numerous hospitals and
office-based practice settings that required addi-
tional clinical-support professionals
The first four students—all ex-Navy corpsmen—
entered the fledgling Duke program in October
1965. The 2-year training program’s philosophy
was to provide students with an education and ori-
entation similar to those given the physicians with
whom they would work. Although original plans
called for the training of two categories of PAs—
one for general practice and one for specialized
inpatient care—the ultimate decision was made to
focus on skills required in assisting family practi-
tioners or internists. The program also emphasized
the development of lifelong learning skills to facili-
tate the ongoing professional growth of these new
providers.
CONCEPTS OF EDUCATION
AND PRACTICE
The introduction of the PA presented philosophical
challenges to established concepts of medical edu-
cation. E. Harvey Estes, MD,11 of Duke, described
the hierarchical approach of medical education as
being “based on the assumption that it was necessary
to first learn ‘basic sciences,’ then normal structure
and function, and finally pathophysiology . . . .” The
PA clearly defied these previous conventions. Some
of the early PAs had no formal collegiate education.
They had worked as corpsmen and had learned skills,
often under battlefield conditions. Clearly, their skills
had been developed, often to a remarkable degree,
before the acquisition of any basic science knowledge
or any knowledge of pathologic physiology.
The developing PA profession was also the first
to officially share the knowledge base that was for-
merly the “exclusive property” of physicians. Before
the development of the PA profession, the physician
was the sole possessor of information, and neither
patient nor other groups could penetrate this wall.
The patient generally trusted the medical profession
to use the knowledge to his or her benefit, and other
groups were forced to use another physician to inter-
pret medical data or medical reasoning. The PA pro-
fession was the first to share this knowledge base, but
others were to follow—such as the NP.11
Fifty years later, it is common to see medical text-
books written for PAs, NPs, and other nonphysician
providers. Such publications were relatively new
approaches for gaining access to medical knowledge
at a time when access to medical textbooks and ref-
erence materials was restricted to physicians only.
The legal relationship of the PA to the physician
was also unique in the health care system. Tied to
the license of a specific precepting physician, the PA
concept received the strong support of establishment
medicine and ultimately achieved significant “inde-
pendence” through that “dependence.” In contrast,
NPs, who emphasized their capability for “indepen-
dent practice,” incurred the wrath of some physician
groups, who believed that NPs needed supervisory
relationships with physicians to validate their role
and accountability.
Finally, the “primary care” or “generalist” nature
of PA training, which stressed the acquisition of
strong skills in data collection, critical thinking, prob-
lem solving, and lifelong learning, made PAs extraor-
dinarily adaptable to almost any patient care setting.
The supervised status of PA practice provided PAs
with ongoing oversight and almost unlimited oppor-
tunities to expand skills as needed in specific prac-
tice settings. In fact, the adaptability of PAs has had
 2 History of the Profession and Current Trends
both positive and negative impacts on the PA profes-
sion. Although PAs were initially trained to provide
health care to medically underserved populations,
the potential for the use of PAs in specialty medicine
became “the good news and the bad news.” Sadler
and colleagues12 recognized this concern early on,
when they wrote (in 1972):
The physician’s assistant is in considerable danger of
being swallowed whole by the whale that is our present
entrepreneurial, subspecialty medical practice system.
The likely co-option of the newly minted physician’s
assistant by subspecialty medicine is one of the most
serious issues confronting the PA.
A shortage of PAs in the early 1990s appeared to
aggravate this situation and confirmed predictions by
Sadler and colleagues12:
Until great numbers of physician’s assistants are pro-
duced, the first to emerge will be in such demand that
relatively few are likely to end up in primary care or
rural settings where the need is the greatest. The same
is true for inner city or poverty areas.
Although most PAs initially chose primary care,
increases in specialty positions raised concern about
the future direction of the PA profession. The Fed-
eral Bureau of Health Professions was so concerned
about this trend that at one point, federal training
grants for PA programs required that all students
complete clinical training assignments in federally
designated medically underserved areas.
MILITARY CORPSMEN
The choice to train experienced military corpsmen
as the first PAs was a key factor in the success of the
concept. As Sadler and colleagues12 pointed out,
“The political appeal of providing a useful civilian
health occupation for the returning Vietnam medical
corpsman is enormous.”
The press and the American public were attracted
to the PA concept because it seemed to be one of
the few positive “products” of the Vietnam War.
Highly skilled, independent duty corpsmen from all
branches of the uniformed services were disenfran-
chised as they attempted to find their place in the
U.S. health care system. These corpsmen, whose
competence had truly been tested “under fire,” pro-
vided a willing, motivated, and proven applicant pool
of pioneers for the PA profession. Robert Howard,
MD,13 of Duke University, in an AMA publication
describing issues of training PAs, noted that not
9
only were there large numbers of corpsmen available
but also using former military personnel prevented
transfer of workers from other health care careers
that were experiencing shortages:
. . . the existing nursing and allied health profes-
sions have manpower shortages parallel to physi-
cian shortages and are not the ideal sources from
which to select individuals to augment the physician
manpower supply. In the face of obvious need, there
does exist a relatively large untapped manpower
pool, the military corpsmen. Some 32,000 corpsmen
are discharged annually who have received valu-
able training and experience while in the service.
If an economically sound, stable, rewarding career
were available in the health industry, many of these
people would continue to pursue such a course. From
this manpower source, it is possible to select mature,
career-oriented, experienced people for physician’s
assistant programs.
The decision to expand these corpsmen’s skills
as PAs also capitalized on the previous investment
of the U.S. military in providing extensive medical
training to these men.
Richard Smith, MD,14 founder of the University
of Washington’s MEDEX program, described this
training:
The U.S. Department of Defense has developed ways
of rapidly training medical personnel to meet its
specific needs, which are similar to those of the civilian
population. . . . Some of these people, such as Special
Forces and Navy “B” Corpsmen, receive 1400 hours
of formal medical training, which may include nine
weeks of a supervised “clerkship.” Army corpsmen of
the 91C series may have received up to 1900 hours of
this formal training.
Most of these men have had 3 to 20 years of experi-
ence, including independent duty on the battlefield,
aboard ship, or in other isolated stations. Many have
some college background; Special Forces “­medics”
average a year of college. After at least 2, and up
to 20, years in uniform, these men have certain
skills and knowledge in the provision of primary
care. Once discharged, however, the investment of
public funds in medical capabilities and p­ otential
care is lost, because they work as detail men, insur-
ance agents, burglar alarm salesmen, or truck
drivers. The majority of this vast manpower pool
is ­unavailable to the current medical care delivery
system because, up to this point, we have not
devised a civilian framework in which their skills
can be put to use.14
10 Overview
OTHER MODELS
Describing the period of 1965 to 1971 as “Stage
One—The Initiation of Physician Assistant Pro-
grams,” Carter and Gifford10 have identified 16 pro-
grams that pioneered the formal education of PAs
and NPs. Programs based in university medical cen-
ters similar to Duke emerged at Bowman Gray, Okla-
homa, Yale, Alabama, George Washington, Emory,
and Johns Hopkins and used the Duke training
model.8 Primarily using academic medical centers as
training facilities, “Duke-model” programs designed
their clinical training to coincide with medical stu-
dent clerkships and emphasized inpatient medical
and surgical roles for PAs. A dramatically different
training model developed at the University of Wash-
ington, pioneered by Richard Smith, MD, a U.S.
public health service physician and former Medical
Director of the Peace Corps. Assigned to the Pacific
Northwest by Surgeon General William Stewart,
Smith was directed to develop a PA training pro-
gram to respond uniquely to the health manpower
shortages of the rural Northwest. Garnering the sup-
port of the Washington State Medical Association,
Smith developed the MEDEX model, which took
a strong position on the “deployment” of students
and graduates to medically underserved areas.15 This
was accomplished by placing clinical phase students
in preceptorships with primary care physicians who
agreed to employ them after graduation. The pro-
gram also emphasized the creation of a “receptive
framework” for the new profession and established
relationships with legislators, regulators, and third-
party payers to facilitate the acceptance and utiliza-
tion of the new profession. Although the program
originally exclusively recruited military corpsmen
as trainees, the term MEDEX was coined by Smith
not as a reference to their former military roles but
rather as a contraction of “Medicine Extension.”16 In
his view, using MEDEX as a term of address avoided
any negative connotations of the word assistant and
any potential conflict with medicine over the appro-
priate use of the term associate. MEDEX programs
were also developed at the University of North
Dakota School of Medicine, University of Utah Col-
lege of Medicine, Dartmouth Medical School, How-
ard University College of Medicine, Charles Drew
Postgraduate Medical School, Pennsylvania State
University College of Medicine, and Medical Uni-
versity of South Carolina.15
In Colorado, Henry Silver, MD, began the Child
Health Associate Program in 1969, providing an
opportunity for individuals without previous medical
experience but with at least 2 years of college to enter
the PA profession. Students received a baccalaureate
degree at the end of the second year of the 3-year
program and were ultimately awarded a master’s
degree at the end of training. Thus, it became the
first PA program to offer a graduate degree as an out-
come of PA training.
Compared with pediatric NPs educated at the
same institution, child health associates, both by
greater depth of education and by law, could provide
more extensive and independent services to pediatric
patients.10
Also offering nonmilitary candidates access to the
PA profession was the Alderson-Broaddus program
in Philippi, West Virginia. As the result of discus-
sions that had begun as early as 1963, Hu Myers,
MD, developed the program, incorporating a cam-
pus hospital to provide clinical training for students
with no previous medical experience. In the first
program designed to give students both a liberal arts
education and professional training as PAs, Alder-
son-Broaddus became the first 4-year college to offer
a baccalaureate degree to its students. Subsequently,
other PA programs were developed at colleges that
were independent of university medical centers.
Early programs of this type included those at North-
eastern University in Boston and at Mercy College
in Detroit.16
Specialty training for PAs was first developed
at the University of Alabama. Designed to facili-
tate access to care for underserved populations, the
2-year program focused its entire clinical training
component on surgery and the surgical subspecial-
ties. Even more specialized training in urology,
orthopedics, and pathology was briefly provided in
programs throughout the United States, although
it was soon recognized that entry-level PA training
needed to offer a broader base of generalist training.
CONTROVERSY ABOUT A NAME
Amid the discussion about the types of training for
the new health care professionals was a controversy
about the appropriate name for these new providers.
Silver of the University of Colorado suggested syni-
atrist (from the Greek syn, signifying “along with”
or “association,” and iatric, meaning “relating to
medicine or a physician”) for health care personnel
performing “physician-like” tasks. He recommended
that the term could be used with a prefix designating
a medical specialty and a suffix indicating the level of
training (aide, assistant, or associate).17 Because of his
background in international health, Smith believed
that “assistant” or even “associate” should be avoided
as potentially demeaning. His term MEDEX for
“physician extension” was designed to be used as a
 2 History of the Profession and Current Trends
term of address, as well as a credential. He even sug-
gested a series of other companion titles, including
“Osler” and “Flexner.”14
In 1970, the AMA-sponsored Congress on Health
Manpower, attempted to end the controversy and
endorse appropriate terminology for the emerg-
ing profession. The Congress chose associate rather
than assistant because of its belief that associate indi-
cated a more collegial relationship between the PA
and supervising physicians. Associate also eliminated
the potential for confusion between PAs and medi-
cal assistants. Despite the position of the Congress,
the AMA’s House of Delegates rejected the term
associate, holding that it should be applied only to
physicians working in collaboration with other phy-
sicians. Nevertheless, PA programs, such as those at
Yale, Duke, and the University of Oklahoma, began
to call their graduates physician associates, and the
debate about the appropriate title continued. A more
subtle concern has been the use of an apostrophe in
the PA title. At various times, in various states, PAs
have been identified as physician’s assistants, implying
ownership by one physician, and physicians’ assistants,
implying ownership by more than one physician;
they are now identified with the current title physi-
cian assistant without the apostrophe.
The June 1992 edition of the Journal of the Ameri-
can Academy of Physician Assistants contains an article
by Eugene Stead, MD, reviewing the debate and call-
ing for a reconsideration of the consistent use of the
term physician associate.18
The issue concerning the name resurfaces regu-
larly, usually among students who are less aware of
the historical and political context of the title. More
recently, however, a name change has the support of
more senior PAs who are adamant that the title assis-
tant is a grossly incorrect description of their work.
Although most PAs would agree that assistant is a
less than optimum title, the greater concern is that
the process to change it would be cumbersome, time
consuming, and potentially threatening to the PA
profession. Every attempt to “open up” a state PA law
with the intent of changing the title would bring with
it the risk that outside forces (e.g., other health pro-
fessions) could modify the practice law and decrease
the PA scope of practice. Similarly, the bureaucratic
processes that would be required to change the title
in every rule and regulation in each state and in every
federal agency would be incredibly labor intensive.
The overarching concern is that state and national
PA organizations would be seen by policymakers as
both self-serving and self-centered if such a change
were attempted. This has become a particularly con-
tentious issue among PAs since NP educators have
chosen to move to a “doctorate in nursing practice”
11
by 2015. In 2011, American Academy of Physician
Assistants (AAPA) President Robert Wooten sent
a letter to all PAs describing a formal process for
collecting data regarding PA “opinions” about the
“name issue” on the annual AAPA census for review
by the AAPA’s House of Delegates.
The “name” is currently back on the list of PA
“hot topics” as new PA programs in other coun-
tries have adopted the name “physician associate.”
The United Kingdom PAs were the first to make
this change based on advice from medical organi-
zations that “physician assistant” was not a correct
description. In addition, the fact that personal secre-
taries were termed “personal assistants” further mud-
died the waters. In 2013, the United Kingdom PAs
became physician associates, and the New Zealand
PAs followed them. Other non-U.S. PA programs
and organizations are considering this change, which
may make the term “physician associate” easier to
support in the United States. Currently, U.S. PA
organizations are promoting the use of the term PA
rather than the spelled out words for physician assis-
tant to facilitate the transition if needed.
PROGRAM EXPANSION
From 1971 to 1973, 31 new PA programs were
established. These startups were directly related
to available federal funding. In 1972, Health Man-
power Educational Initiatives (U.S. Public Health
Service) provided more than $6 million in funding
to 40 programs. By 1975, 10 years after the first stu-
dents entered the Duke program, there were 1282
graduates of PA programs. From 1974 to 1985, nine
additional programs were established. Federal fund-
ing was highest in 1978, when $8,686,000 assisted 42
programs. By 1985, the AAPA estimated that 16,000
PAs were practicing in the United States. A total
of 76 programs were accredited between 1965 and
1985, but 25 of those programs later closed (Table
2.1). Reasons for closure range from withdrawal of
accreditation to competition for funding within the
sponsoring institution and adverse pressure on the
sponsoring institution from other health care groups.
Physician assistant programs entered an expansion
phase beginning in the early 1990s when issues of
efficiency in medical education, the necessity of team
practice, and the search for cost-effective solutions to
health care delivery emerged. The AAPA urged the
Association of Physician Assistant Programs (APAP)
to actively encourage the development of new pro-
grams, particularly in states where programs were
not available. Beginning in 1990, the APAP created
processes for new program support, including new
12 Overview

programs. The difficulty lies in the impossibility of

TABLE 2.1 Distribution of Closed Physician
making accurate predictions about the future health
Assistant Training Programs
workforce, a problem that applies to all health profes-
by State
sions. By 2011, 159 programs were accredited com-
State Program pared with 56 programs in the early 1980s. Expanded
roles of PAs in academic medical centers (as resident
Alabama University of Alabama, Birmingham
replacements), in managed care delivery systems, and
Arizona Maricopa County Hospital Indian in enlarging community health center networks have
HSMC, Phoenix
created unpredicted demand for PAs in both primary
California U.S. Navy, San Diego (now Uniformed and specialty roles. The major variable, aside from
Services PA Program in San Anto- the consideration of the ideal “mix” of health care
nio), Loma Linda University PA
Program providers in future systems, has to do with the num-
ber of people who will receive health care and the
Colorado University of Colorado OB-GYN Asso-
ciate Program
amount of health care that will be provided to each
person. When, for example, the Affordable Care Act,
Florida Santa Fe Community College PA signed into law by President Obama in 2010, was
Program*
fully implemented on schedule in 2014, the demand
Indiana Indiana University Fort Wayne PA for all types of clinicians rose dramatically. These
Program
projections are driving the expansion of current pro-
Maryland Johns Hopkins University Health grams and the development of new ones. By 2015,
Associates there were more than 200 PA programs with more
Mississippi University of Mississippi PA Program than 100,000 PAs having graduated from U.S. PA
Missouri Stephens College PA Program programs.
Unfortunately, much of the concern about the
North Catawba Valley Technical Institute,
Carolina University of North Carolina Surgi- health care workforce has focused primarily on phy-
cal Assistant Program sician supply (see “Physician Supply Literature” in
North Dakota University of North Dakota
the Resources section) without including PAs and
NPs in economic formulas. As a result, American
New Dartmouth Medical School medical and osteopathic schools have been urged to
Hampshire
expand their class size and to create new campuses
New Mexico USPHS Gallup Indian Medic Program to serve underserved groups. PA programs are con-
Ohio Lake Erie College PA Program Cincin- cerned about the impact of medical school growth
nati Technical College PA Program on access to clinical training sites, as well as on the
Pennsylvania Pennsylvania State College PA Pro- development of PA jobs. Overall, however, it appears
gram, Allegheny Community College that new models of medical training that include
South Medical University of South Carolina increased emphasis on interdisciplinary teams and
Carolina greater integration of medical students, residents,
Texas U.S. Air Force, Sheppard PA Program and PA students on most patient care services will be
beneficial for the PA profession.
Virginia Naval School Health Sciences
Wisconsin Marshfield Clinic PA Program

*Transferred to another sponsoring institution (University of

Florida, Gainesville).
From Oliver DR. Third Annual Report of Physician Assistant
Educational Programs in the United States, 1986–1987. Al-
exandria, VA: Association of Physician Assistant Programs;
1987.
program workshops, and ultimately a program con-
sultation service (Program Assistance and Technical
Help [PATH]) to promote quality in new and estab-
lished programs. These services were ultimately dis-
banded as the rate of new program growth declined.
The PA profession has engaged in an ongoing
and lively debate about the development of new PA
FUNDING FOR PROGRAMS
The success of the Duke program, as well as that
of all developing PA programs, was initially tied to
external funding. At Duke, Stead was successful in
convincing the federal government’s National Heart
Institute that the new program fell within its grant-
ing guidelines. Subsequently, Duke received founda-
tion support from the Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation,
the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations, and the
Commonwealth Fund.10
In 1969, federal interest in the developing profes-
sion brought with it demonstration funding from the
National Center for Health Services Research and
 2 History of the Profession and Current Trends
Development. With increasing acceptance of the PA
concept and the demonstration that PAs could be
trained relatively rapidly and deployed to medically
underserved areas, the federal investment increased.
In 1972, the Comprehensive Health Manpower Act,
under Section 774 of the Public Health Act, autho-
rized support for PA training. The major objectives
were education of PAs for the delivery of primary
care medical services in ambulatory care settings;
deployment of PA graduates to medically under-
served areas; and recruitment of larger numbers of
residents from medically underserved areas, minority
groups, and women to the health professions.
Physician assistant funding under the Health
Manpower Education Initiatives Awards and Public
Health Services Contracts from 1972 to 1976 totaled
$32,669,565 for 43 programs. From 1977 to 1991, PA
training was funded through Sections 701, 783, and
788 of the Public Health Service Act. Grants during
this period totaled $87,927,728 and included strong
incentives for primary care training, recruitment of
diverse student bodies, and deployment of students
to clinical sites serving the medically underserved.
According to Cawley,19 as of 1992 “This legislation
. . . supported the education of at least 17,500, or over
70% of the nation’s actively practicing PAs.” Unfor-
tunately, this high level of support did not continue
and with lesser funding for primary care, programs
followed medical schools into specialty practice
models. Today the majority of the nation’s PAs—
and the programs from which they graduated—have
unfortunately not been exposed to the primary care
values and experiences that characterized and defined
the early PA concept.
During the period of program expansion, the
focus of federal funding support became much
more specific, and fewer programs received funding.
Tied to the primary care access goals of the Health
Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), PA
program grants commonly supported less program
infrastructure and more specific primary care initia-
tives and educational innovations. Examples of activ-
ities that were eligible for federal support included
clinical site expansion in urban and rural underserved
settings, recruitment and retention activities, and
curriculum development on topics such as managed
care and geriatrics.
An important trend was the diversification of
funding sources for PA programs. In addition to
federal PA training grants, many programs have
benefited from clinical site support provided by
other federal programs, such as Area Health Edu-
cation Centers (AHECs) or the National Health
Service Corps (NHSC). Also, many programs now
receive expanded state funding on the basis of state
13
workforce projections of an expanded need for pri-
mary care providers.
Unfortunately, federal Title VII support for all
primary care programs (including family medicine,
pediatrics, general internal medicine, and primary
care dentistry) began to erode in the late 1990s.
Federal budget analysts believed that the shrinking
number of graduates choosing primary care employ-
ment was a signal that federal support was no longer
justified. The federal Title VII Advisory Committee
on Primary Care Medicine and Dentistry—which
includes PA representatives—was formed to study
the problem and recommend strategies. Title VII
and Title VIII Reauthorization was delayed until the
passage of overarching health reform legislation in
2010.
Physician assistant programs immediately ben-
efited from available funding through traditional
5-year training grants and two one-time only grant
programs for (1) educational equipment, including
simulation models and teleconferencing hardware,
and (2) expansion grants to add more training slots
for students who were willing to commit themselves
to primary care employment. For the first time, PA
training grants were expanded from 3 years to 5 years
but were limited to $150,000 per grant.
ACCREDITATION
Accreditation of formal PA programs became imper-
ative because the term physician assistant was being
used to label a wide variety of formally and infor-
mally trained health personnel. Leaders of the Duke
program—E. Harvey Estes, MD, and Robert How-
ard, MD—asked the AMA to determine educational
guidelines for PAs. This request was consistent with
the AMA’s position of leadership in the development
of new health careers and its publication of Guidelines
for Development of New Health Occupations.
The National Academy of Science’s Board of
Medicine had also become involved in the effort to
develop uniform terminology for PAs. It suggested
three categories of PAs. Type A was defined as a
“generalist” capable of data collection and presenta-
tion and having the potential for independent judg-
ment; type B was trained in one clinical specialty;
type C was determined to be capable of performing
tasks similar to those performed by type A but not
capable of independent judgment.
Although these categories have not remained as
descriptors of the PA profession, they helped the
medical establishment move toward the support of PA
program accreditation. Also helpful were surveys con-
ducted by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the
14 Overview
American Society of Internal Medicine determining
the acceptability of the PA concept to their respective
members. With positive responses, these organiza-
tions, along with the American Academy of Family
Physicians and the American College of Physicians,
joined the AMA’s Council on Medical Education in
the creation of the “educational essentials” for the
accreditation of PA training programs. The AMA’s
House of Delegates approved these essentials in 1971.
Three PAs—William Stanhope, Steven Turnip-
seed, and Gail Spears—were involved in the creation
of these essentials as representatives of the Duke,
MEDEX, and Colorado programs, respectively. The
AMA appointed L.M. Detmer Administrator of the
accreditation process. In 1972, accreditation appli-
cations were processed, and 20 sites were visited in
alphabetical order, 17 of which received accredita-
tion. Ultimately, the accreditation activities were car-
ried out by the Joint Review Committee, which was a
part of the AMA’s Committee on Allied Health Edu-
cation and Accreditation (CAHEA). John McCarty
became the Administrator of the ARC-PA in 1991
and has been the first PA to serve in this role. Later,
the Joint Committee was renamed the Accreditation
Review Committee (ARC). In 2000, the ARC became
an independent entity, apart from the CAHEA, and
changed its name to the Accreditation Review Com-
mission. Current members of the ARC include the
Physician Assistant Education Association, AAPA,
American Academy of Family Physicians, American
Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Physi-
cians, American College of Surgeons, and American
Medical Association.
CERTIFICATION
Just as an accreditation process served to assess the
quality of PA training programs, a certification pro-
cess was necessary to ensure the quality of individual
program graduates and become the “gold standard”
for the new profession. In 1970, the American Regis-
try of Physician’s Associates was created by programs
from Duke University; Bowman Gray School of
Medicine; and the University of Texas, Galveston, to
construct the first certification process. The first cer-
tification examination, for graduates from eight pro-
grams, was administered in 1972. It was recognized,
however, that the examination would have greater
credibility if the National Board of Medical Exam-
iners administered it. During this same period, the
AMA’s House of Delegates requested the Council of
Health Manpower to become involved in the devel-
opment of a national certification program for PAs.
Specifically, the House of Delegates was concerned
that the new professional role should be developed
in an orderly fashion, under medical guidance, and
should be measured by high standards. The coopera-
tion of the AMA and the National Board of Medical
Examiners ultimately resulted in the creation of the
National Commission on Certification of Physician
Assistants (NCCPA), which brought together repre-
sentatives of 14 organizations as an independent com-
mission. Federal grants contributed $715,000 toward
the construction and validation of the examination.10
In 1973, the first NCCPA national board exami-
nation was administered at 38 sites to 880 candidates.
In 1974, 1303 candidates took the examination; in
1975, there were 1414 candidates. In 1992, 2121
candidates were examined. In 1997, the examination
was administered to 3728 candidates. In 2002, 4918
candidates took the Physician Assistant National
Certifying Examination (PANCE) (3995 first-time
takers). In 2006, 5495 candidates (4522 first-time
takers), and, in 2007, an estimated 5836 candidates
took the PANCE, of whom 4736 were first-time tak-
ers. In January 2014, Dawn Morton Rias, NCCPA
CEO, announced the certification of the 100,000th
physician assistant (PA-C) in the nation since the
organization’s inception nearly 40 years ago.20
Now administered only to graduates of ARC-
PA–accredited PA programs, the NCCPA board
examination was originally open to three categories
of individuals seeking certification:
• Formally trained PAs, who were eligible by virtue
of their graduation from a program approved by
the Joint Review Committee on Educational Pro-
grams for Physician’s Assistants
• NPs, who were eligible provided that they had
graduated from a family or pediatric NP/clinician
program of at least 4 months’ duration, affiliated
with an accredited medical or nursing school
• Informally trained PAs, who could sit for the
examination provided that they had functioned for
4 of the past 5 years as PAs in a primary care set-
ting. Candidate applications and detailed employ-
ment verification by current and former employers
provided data for determination of eligibility.21
Since 1986, only graduates of formally accredited
PA programs have been eligible for the NCCPA
examination.
The NCCPA’s assignments include not only the
annual examination but also technical assistance to
state medical boards on issues of certification. The
NCCPA’s website, NCCPA Connect, includes a
listing of all currently certified PAs as a resource for
employers and state licensing boards.
The NCCPA also administers a recertification
process, which includes requirements to complete
 2 History of the Profession and Current Trends
and register 100 hours of continuing medical educa-
tion (CME) every 2 years and to pass for recertifica-
tion examinations on a specified schedule. Originally
every 6 years, since 2014, the NCCPA has begun
a transition to a 10-year recertification and exam
cycle. Since recertification was mandated in 1981,
PAs have been required to retest every 6 years. The
10-year process now includes CME requirements
obtained through self-assessment or performance
improvement.
A recent development for the NCCPA is the
development of voluntary recognition for specialty
training and education. Called Certificates of Added
Qualification (CAQ), the process is modeled after
similar acknowledgments in Family Medicine. The
NCCPA’s decision to create the CAQ was based on
a long process that involved requests from PA spe-
cialty groups, a history of inquiries from institutional
credentialing and privileging bodies, a series of meet-
ings involving partnerships between specialty PAs
and supportive parallel physician organizations, and
a long exploration of possible options.22
The final decision—to try the CAQ process with
five specialties—was sharply criticized by the AAPA,
which feared that any specialty process threatens the
generalist image. Ultimately, the NCCPA decided
that it was better for them to move in this direction
rather than have external for-profit organizations
create certification processes without PA input. The
five specialties chosen were cardiovascular surgery,
orthopedics, nephrology, psychiatry, and emergency
medicine. Teams composed of representatives of
MD and PA specialty organizations worked together
to create the CAQ process. Subsequently, CAQs in
pediatrics and hospital medicine have been added.
In 2005, the NCCPA created a separate NCCPA
Foundation to promote and support the PA profes-
sion through research and educational projects. The
Foundation supports the work of the NCCPA for
the advancement of certified physician assistants and
the benefit of the public. PA Foundation activities
have included a PA Ethics Project with the Physi-
cian Assistant Education Association, a Best Practice
Project focusing on the relationships between PAs
and their supervising physicians, and a research
grants program.
In 2010, the NCCPA welcomed the Society for
the Preservation of Physician Assistant History and
was moved into its infrastructure. The Society is now
headquartered at the NCCPA offices in Johns Creek,
Georgia. Originally founded in 2002 as a free-stand-
ing organization for educational, research, and lit-
erary purposes, the Society’s mission is to serve as
the preeminent leader in fostering the preservation,
study, and presentation of the history of the PA
15
profession by creating and presenting an online vir-
tual repository of historic and current information on
the PA profession. The Society’s projects include an
archive of PA historical items, the extensive website
on PA history designed to serve as a resource for PA
students and practicing PAs and researchers, as well
as the PA History Center housed in the North Caro-
lina Academy’s headquarters in Raleigh-Durham,
North Carolina. An 11-member board governs the
Society and provides leadership for history activities
with support from NCCPA staff.
ORGANIZATIONS
American Academy of Physician
Assistants
What was to become the AAPA was initiated by
students from Duke’s second and third classes as
the American Association of Physician Assistants.
Incorporated in North Carolina in 1968 with E.
Harvey Estes, Jr., MD, as its first advisor and Wil-
liam Stanhope serving two terms as the first presi-
dent (1968–1969 and 1969–1970), the organization’s
original purposes were to educate the public about
PAs, provide education for PAs, and encourage ser-
vice to patients and the medical community. With
initial annual dues of $20, the Academy created a
newsletter as the official publication of the AAPA and
contacted fellow students at the MEDEX program
and at Alderson-Broaddus.
By the end of the second year, national media
coverage of emerging PA programs throughout
the United States was increasing (Fig. 2.1), and the
AAPA began to plan for state societies and student
chapters. Tax-exempt status was obtained, the office
of president-elect was established, and staggered
terms of office for board members were approved.
Controversy over types of PA training models
offered the first major challenge to the AAPA. Believ-
ing that students trained in 2-year programs based
on the biomedical model (type A) were the only
legitimate PAs, the AAPA initially restricted mem-
bership to these graduates. The Council of MEDEX
Programs strongly opposed this point of view. Ulti-
mately, discussions between Duke University’s Rob-
ert Howard, MD, and MEDEX Program’s Richard
Smith, MD, resulted in an inclusion of graduates of
all accredited programs in the definition of physician
assistant and thus in the AAPA.
At least three other organizations also posi-
tioned themselves to speak for the new profession.
These were a proprietary credentialing association,
the American Association of Physician Assistants
16 Overview

FIG. 2.1 n The comic strip “Gasoline Alley” is credited with introducing to the public the concept
of the physician assistant in 1971, when leading character Chipper Wallet decided to become
one. (Tribune Media Services. All Rights Reserved. Reprinted with permission.)
 2 History of the Profession and Current Trends 17

FIG. 2.1, cont’d

18 Overview
(a group representing U.S. Public Health Service
PAs at Staten Island); the National Association of
Physician Assistants; and the American College of
Physician Assistants, from the Cincinnati Technical
College PA Program. AAPA President Paul Moson
provided the leadership that “would result in the
emergence of the AAPA as the single voice of pro-
fessional PAs” (W.D. Stanhope, C.E. Fasser, unpub-
lished manuscript, 1992).
This unification was critical to the involvement of
PAs in the development of educational standards and
the accreditation of PA programs. During Carl Fasser’s
term as AAPA president, the AMA formally recognized
the AAPA, and three Academy representatives were
formally appointed to the Joint Review Committee.
During the AAPA presidency of Tom Godkins and
the APAP presidency of Thomas Piemme, MD, the
two organizations sought funding from foundations
for the creation of a shared national office. Funding
was received from the Robert Wood Johnson Foun-
dation, the van Ameringen Foundation, and the Ittle-
son Foundation. Because of its 501(c)(3) tax-exempt
status, APAP received the funds for the cooperative
use of both organizations. “Discussions held at that
time between Piemme and Godkins and other orga-
nizational representatives agreed that in the future,
because of the limited size of APAP . . . funds would
later flow back from the AAPA to APAP”23 (W.D.
Stanhope, C.E. Fasser, unpublished manuscript,
1992). Donald Fisher, MD, was hired as executive
director of both organizations, and a national office
was opened in Washington, DC. According to Stan-
hope and Fasser, “a considerable debt is owed to the
many PA programs and their staff who supported the
early years of AAPA.”
AAPA constituent chapters were created during
President Roger Whittaker’s term in 1976. Modeled
after the organizational structure of the American
Academy of Family Physicians, the AAPA’s constitu-
ent chapter structure and the apportionment of seats
in the House of Delegates were the culmination of
initial discussions held in the formative days of the
AAPA. The American Academy of Family Physicians
hosted the AAPA’s first Constituent Chapters Work-
shop in Kansas City, and the first AAPA House of
Delegates was convened in 1977.
Throughout its development, the AAPA has been
active in the publication of journals for the profes-
sion. As the first official journal of the AAPA, Physi-
cian’s Associate, was originally designed to encourage
research and to report on the developing PA move-
ment. With the consolidation of graduates of all
programs into the AAPA, the official academy pub-
lication became the PA Journal, A Journal for New
Health Practitioners. In 1977, Health Practitioner
became the official magazine of the AAPA followed
by Physician Assistant in 1983 and the Journal of the
American Academy of Physician Assistants in 1988. A
monthly online publication, PA Professional, has more
recently been created by the AAPA to feature news,
policy issues, and the successes of individual PAs.
Clinician Reviews and Physician Assistant, published
by external publishers, also offer medical articles and
coverage of professional issues for PAs. In addition
to formal publications, the AAPA’s website provides
the most current information about current prac-
tice, policy, and advocacy issues for PAs and their
employers.
Governed by a 13-member board of directors,
including officers of the House of Delegates and a
student representative, the AAPA’s structure includes
standing committees and councils. Specialty groups
and formal caucuses bring together academy mem-
bers with a common concern or interest.24
The AAPA’s Student Academy is composed of
chartered student societies from each PA educational
program. Each society has one seat in the Assembly
of Representatives, which meets at the annual con-
ference and elects officers to direct Student Academy
(SAAPA) activities.
The Academy also includes a philanthropic arm,
the Physician Assistant Foundation, whose mission is
to foster knowledge and philanthropy that promotes
quality health care.
The annual AAPA conference serves as the major
political and continuing medical education activity
for PAs, with an average annual attendance of 7000
to 9000 participants. A list of past and present AAPA
presidents is provided in Table 2.2. A history of con-
ference locations is given in Table 2.3. Table 2.4 lists
presidents of the SAAPA from the AAPA.
Legislative and leadership activities for the AAPA
take place at an annual leadership event, which also
provides the opportunity for lobbying of state con-
gressional delegations in Washington, DC.
Key to the success of the AAPA is a dedicated staff
at the national office in Alexandria, Virginia. Under
a chief executive officer who is responsible to the
AAPA Board of Directors, senior vice presidents and
vice presidents manage Academy activities related to
governmental affairs, education, communications,
member services, accounting, and administration.
Association of Physician Assistant
­Programs to Physician Assistant
­Education Association
The APAP evolved from the original A ­ merican
Registry of Physician’s Associates. The ­Registry was
originally created “to determine the competence
 2 History of the Profession and Current Trends 19

TABLE 2.2 AAPA Presidents

1968–1969 William D. Stanhope, PA 1993–1994 Ann L. Elderkin, PA
1969–1970 William D. Stanhope, PA 1994–1995 Debi A. Gerbert, PA-C
1970–1971 John J. McQueary, PA 1995–1996 Lynn Caton, PA-C
1971–1972 Thomas R. Godkins, PA 1996–1997 Sherrie L. McNeeley, PA-C
1972–1973 John A. Braun, PA 1997–1998 Libby Coyte, PA-C
1973–1974 Paul F. Moson, PA 1998–1999 Ron L. Nelson, PA-C*
1974–1975 C. Emil Fasser, PA-C 1999–2000 William C. Kohlhepp, MHA, PA-C
1975–1976 Thomas R. Godkins, PA 2000–2001 Glen E. Combs, MA, PA-C
1976–1977 Roger G. Whittaker, PA* 2001–2002 Edward Friedmann, PA-C
1977–1978 Dan P. Fox, PA 2002–2003 Ina S. Cushman, PA-C
1978–1979 James E. Konopa, PA 2003–2004 Pam Moyers Scott, MPAS, PA-C
1979–1980 Ron Rosenberg, PA 2004–2005 Julie Theriault, PA-C
1980–1981 C. Emil Fasser, PA-C 2005–2006 Richard C. Rohrs, PA-C
1981–1982 Jarrett M. Wise, RPA 2006–2007 Mary P. Ettari, MPH, PA-C
1982–1983 Ron I. Fisher, PA 2007–2008 Gregor F. Bennett, MA, PA-C
1983–1984 Charles G. Huntington, RPA 2008–2009 Cynthia Lord
1984–1985 Judith B. Willis, MA, PA 2009–2010 Stephen Hanson, MPA, PA-C
1985–1986 Glen E. Combs, PA-C 2010–2011 Patrick Killeen, MS, PA-C
1986–1987 R. Scott Chavez, PA-C* 2011–2012 Robert Wooten, PA-C
1987–1988 Ron L. Nelson, PA-C 2012–2013 James Delaney, MPA, PA-C
1988–1989 Marshall R. Sinback, Jr., PA-C 2013–2014 Lawrence Herman, PA-C
1989–1990 Paul Lombardo, RPA-C 2014–2015 John McGinnity, MS, PA-C
1990–1991 Bruce C. Fichandler, PA 2015–2016 Jeff Katz, PA-C
1991–1992 Sherri L. Stuart, PA-C 2016–2017 Josann Pagel, MPAS, PA-C
1992–1993 William H. Marquardt, PA-C

*Deceased. From American Academy of Physician Assistants, Alexandria, VA; 2016.

TABLE 2.3 American Academy of Physician Assistants National Conference Locations

1973 Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas 1996 New York, New York
1974 New Orleans, Louisiana 1997 Minneapolis, Minnesota
1975 St. Louis, Missouri 1998 Salt Lake City, Utah
1976 Atlanta, Georgia 1999 Atlanta, Georgia
1977 Houston, Texas 2000 Chicago, Illinois
1978 Las Vegas, Nevada 2001 Anaheim, California
1979 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 2002 Boston, Massachusetts
1980 New Orleans, Louisiana 2003 New Orleans, Louisiana
1981 San Diego, California 2004 Las Vegas, Nevada
1982 Washington, DC 2005 Orlando, Florida
1983 St. Louis, Missouri 2006 San Francisco, California
1984 Denver, Colorado 2007 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
1985 San Antonio, Texas 2008 San Antonio, Texas
1986 Boston, Massachusetts 2009 San Diego, California
1987 Cincinnati, Ohio 2010 Atlanta, Georgia
1988 Los Angeles, California 2011 Las Vegas, Nevada
1989 Washington, DC 2012 Toronto, Canada
1990 New Orleans, Louisiana 2013 Washington, DC
1991 San Francisco, California 2014 Boston, Massachusetts
1992 Nashville, Tennessee 2015 San Francisco, California
1993 Miami Beach, Florida 2016 San Antonio, Texas
1994 San Antonio, Texas 2017 Las Vegas, Nevada
1995 Las Vegas, Nevada 2018 New Orleans, Louisiana
From American Academy of Physician Assistants, Alexandria, VA; 2016.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
regarding the machines as did the engineers who reported against
their use on the railway.
 CHAPTER IV.
An important improvement in the locomotive—Bury’s original “Liverpool,” the first inside cylinder
engine—Bury’s own account of his invention—Other authorities agree with Bury—Extract,
supplied by the Secretary of the L. & N. W. Rly., from the minute books of the Liverpool and
Manchester Rly.—An early authentic list of Bury’s locomotives—Description of Bury’s
“Liverpool”—Last hoard of on the Bolton and Kenyon Railway—The “Invicta” for the first
Kentish railway—Still preserved by the S.E.R—First official trip on the Liverpool and
Manchester Railway—Formal opening of the L. & M.R.—The locomotives that took part in the
ceremony—The “William the Fourth” and “Queen Adelaide” for the L. & M. Rly.—Hackworth’s
“Globe” for the Stockton and Darlington Railway—The romance of her construction, life, and
end—Stephenson’s “Planet”—Some of her feats on the L. & M. Rly.—Heavier locomotives for
the L. & M. Rly.—Dodd’s engine for the Monkland and Kirkintilloch Rly.—Historical locomotive
sold by auction for 20 guineas—Bury’s “Liver” for the L. & M. Rly.—More Hackworth “iron
horses” for the Stockton and Darlington Rly—Despite their peculiarities, they prove most
successful—The “Caledonian.”
We have now to deal with one of the most important improvements in the locomotive—
viz., that introduced by Mr. Edward Bury, of the Clarence Foundry, Liverpool, in the design
of his celebrated “Liverpool,” (Fig. 17). Of late years many extraordinary statements
concerning various types and designs of locomotives have been made, and the
“romancing” relative to the original “Liverpool” is perhaps the most conspicuous, whilst at
the same time its utter incorrectness is easily proved.
One of these statements is that “the first engine built by Bury at Clarence Foundry was
an outside cylinder engine, the ‘Dreadnought,’ which was completed March 30th, 1830, but
proved a failure. However, he lost no time, but, with the assistance of his foreman, Mr.
Kennedy, got out working drawings for a new engine, to be named the ‘Liverpool.’ This
engine, No. 2 in the locomotive order book, and class A in the description book, was
commenced early in January, 1831; it was completed in March of that year, and in May,
1831, it was put to work on the Petersburg Railroad of America. It had four coupled wheels
of 4ft. 6in. diameter.”
Now, as to the facts, Bury’s books were sold by auction by his creditors on August 15th
and 16th, 1851; and, even if the books are now in existence (which is extremely unlikely), it
is obviously impossible for them to contain the particulars quoted above, for the very simple
and conclusive reason that the facts relative to the original “Liverpool” are quite different to
the statement just quoted.
There are three improvements with which Bury is justly credited in the locomotive now
under review—viz., the adoption of (1) horizontal inside cylinders below the smoke-box, (2)
cranked driving axle, and (3) coupled driving wheels of the (then) great diameter of six feet.
In describing this historical “Liverpool” locomotive we cannot do better than quote Bury,
the maker and designer of it, and Kennedy, his foreman, who constructed it. The former, at
a meeting of the Institute of Civil Engineers, held on March 17th, 1840, read a paper on the
locomotive, and, speaking of the inside cylinder engine, said: “This form of engine Was
adopted by the author as early as 1829, when he constructed the ‘Liverpool,’ which was
the original model engine, with horizontal cylinders and cranked axles. It was set to work
on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway in July, 1830.”
 Fig. 17.—BURY’S ORIGINAL “LIVERPOOL,” THE FIRST ENGINE WITH INSIDE
CYLINDERS AND CRANKED DRIVING AXLE COUPLED WHEELS, 6ft.
DIAMETER

About 1843 there was considerable discussion amongst engine builders and locomotive
engineers as to the relative safety of inside and outside cylinder, engines, and also
regarding the superiority of the four-wheel or six-wheel locomotive. Bury and Co. thereupon
issued a circular giving a history of the locomotive practice of their firm, and the various
advantages claimed for their locomotive designs.
From this circular we extract the following remarks, as bearing upon the point now
under discussion:—“It was the good fortune Of the conductor of this foundry to originate
the construction of four-wheel engines, with inside framing, crank axles, and cylinders
placed in the smoke-box.... The first engine on this principle was manufactured in this
foundry in 1829, prior to the opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway.” Such are
Mr. Bury’s statements concerning the original “Liverpool.”
We will now see what his partner, Mr. James Kennedy, the then President of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, had to say regarding the “Liverpool.”
At a meeting of the Institute of Civil Engineers, held on November 11th, 1856, a
communication was read from Mr. Kennedy, in which he stated that “the late George
Stephenson had told both Bury and Kennedy, after having seen the ‘Liverpool’ engine on
the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, that his son, the present Robert Stephenson, had
taken a fancy to the plan of the ‘Liverpool,’ and intended to make immediately a small
engine on the same principle.” This he afterwards did, Stephenson’s “Planet” being the
said engine “on the same principle.” Kennedy went on to state that “the letter-book of the
firm (Bury and Co.) for the year 1830 contained the whole of the correspondence on the
subject between the Directors of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway and Bury.”
The reader can readily judge as to which statement is likely to be correct—those of
such well-known men as Bury and Kennedy, which are concise, straightforward statements
of known and accepted facts, or the recently published remarks concerning the “books,
etc.”
 Fortunately, students of locomotive history are not even obliged to decide either one
way or the other on the statements pro and con already quoted concerning the original
“Liverpool,” but are able to gain independent and conclusive evidence on this important
point in locomotive history. For the purpose of finally clearing up the point, the writer
communicated with the Secretary of the London and North Western Railway, asking him to
examine the Directors’ Minute Books of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway for the year
1830, to see if these authentic documents contained any reference to Bury’s “Liverpool.”
Mr. Houghton most generously had the search we required made, and the result was as
might have been expected. But let the letter tell its own tale.
“London and North Western Railway,
“Secretary’s Office, Euston Station, N.W.
“June, 3rd, 1896.
“Dear Sir,—With further reference to your request for information relative to Bury’s locomotives, I have had
the Minute Books of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway searched for the years 1829-30.
“Towards the end of 1830 the Board sanctioned the [further] trial of the ‘Liverpool,’ and it was
consequently allowed to work on the railway in competition with one of Mr. Stephenson’s engines. The
engineer was dissatisfied with the size of the wheels, which were 6ft. instead of his maximum 5ft.; and there
was a long controversy as to the respective merits of circular and square fire-boxes, which was ultimately
referred to arbitration, when the square boxes recommended by Mr. Stephenson were given the preference.
—Yours truly,

“(Signed) T. Houghton.”
The above letter conclusively settles the points in dispute—viz., that the “Liverpool” was
tried on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway in 1830, and that the diameter of the wheels
was 6ft.
We have thus pricked the specious bubble that stated the “Liverpool” was duly
commenced to be built in 1831, and that the diameter of the wheels was but 4ft. 6in.!
Readers may wonder why such obviously inaccurate statements should be published.
One can only conjecture. Many lists of early locomotives have during the past few years
been published. These should, however, be accepted with the very greatest caution. The
following table of dimensions of Bury’s early engines appeared as long ago as September
18th, 1857, in the Engineer. As this was nearly forty years before “locomotive lists” had any
marketable value, there can be no reason to call in question its accuracy:—
No. Diam. No. Diam. Length Inside Area Total
No. of Diam. of Length Diam. of
of of of of of Diam. of of Surface.
Engines Cylinder. Stroke Wheels.
Tubes. Tubes. Tubes. Tubes. Tubes. Fire-box. Tubes.
No. Ins. Ins. Ft. Ins. No. Ins. No. Ins. Ft. Ins. Ft. Ins. Inches. Sq. Feet.
2 12 18 6 0 79 1¾ 52 1½ 7 11½ 3 9 19 450.26
3&4 11 16 5 0 73 ¾ 24 1½ 7 1 3 0 16⅜ 303.58
5 8 16 4 6 40 1¾ 13 1½ 6 5 2 7½ (6) 12⅝(7) 150.28
6&7 12 18 5 6 76 2 13 1¾ 8 6 3 7 18½ 18¹/₁₆ 390
8&9 9 16 5 0 40 1¾ 13 1½ 6 11 2 10½ 12⅜ 162
10 9 16 4 4 43 2 9 1¾ 7 1 3 0 14⅛ 189.1
11 8 16 4 6 40 1¾ 13 1½ 6 7½ 2 9½ 12⅝ 155.2
12 & 13 10 16 4 6 51 2 9 1¾ 7 2½ 3 0½ 15¼ 222.74
14 8 16 4 6 43 1¾ 9 1½ 6 8 2 10½ 12⅝ 155
15, 16, & 17 12 18 4 6 58 2½ 2 2 8 2 3 7 19⅛ 19¹/₁₆ 318.40
18 & 19 10 16 4 6 76 2 — 1¾ 7 2½ 3 2 15¼ 251
 At the present time there exists a market for early, locomotive details; as with other
marketable commodities, given a demand, a supply (of some kind) will be forthcoming.
We have a copy of the report prepared by the arbitrators, appointed by the Directors of
the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, to inquire into the question of the round or square
fire-box, as mentioned in Mr. Houghton’s letter. The report was made by John Farey and
Joshua Field, two celebrated engineers of that period, and was in favour of the square fire-
box.
It will now be of interest to give a description of Bury’s original “Liverpool,” which was
designed and her construction commenced in 1829. She contained many unusual features.
Instead of a tubular boiler a number of convoluted flues were used. The fire was urged by
bellows fixed under the tender; the driver stood at one end of the engine in front of the
smoke-box, and the fireman at the other end, behind the fire-box; the cylinders were
horizontal, placed inside the frames beneath the smoke-box; their diameter was 12in., the
stroke being 18in.; the four wheels were 6ft. in diameter, and were coupled, and the driving
axle was, of course, cranked.
The “Liverpool,” in this her original state, was used as a ballast engine in the
construction of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, but not being very successful, was
withdrawn., After some alterations, she was again put to work on July 22nd, 1830. Then
the crank axle appears to have broken, and she was again removed for repairs, and again
put to work on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway on October 26th, 1830. After the
report previously mentioned, the Directors refused to purchase the “Liverpool,” and Bury
removed her to the Bolton and Kenyon Railway. Here she attained a speed of 58 miles an
hour with twelve loaded wagons. On this line one of her wheels broke, and the driver was
killed. As a result of this accident, she was then rebuilt and sold to Hargreaves, the
contractor, for locomotive power on the Bolton and Kenyon Railway, and continued to work
on that line for some years.
The Canterbury and Whitstable Railway was opened on May 3rd, 1830, and was the
first locomotive line in the South of England. The original engine, the “Invicta” (Fig. 18), is
still preserved by the South Eastern Railway at Ashford, but it is a mere chance that this
engine did not disappear nearly sixty years ago. The Canterbury and Whitstable Railway
Company, after a short time, let the working of the line to contractors, and they preferred to
work it by horse-power, and we find that in October, 1839, the contractors were advertising
the “Invicta” for sale, describing her as of “12 horse-power, 18in. stroke, cylinders 24in.
long, 9½pin. diameter, wheels 4ft. in diameter.” Fortunately for students of early
locomotives, there was no demand for the engine anywhere in the neighbourhood of
Whitstable, there then being no other locomotive line nearer than Greenwich, on which she
could have been used; so no buyer was forthcoming, and the “Invicta” was thereupon laid
up. The dimensions of the “Invicta,” as supplied to us by Mr. J. Stirling, are as follows:
Cylinders, 10½in. diameter, fixed in inclined position over leading wheels, and working the
trailing wheels; stroke, 18in.; four-coupled wheels, 4ft. diameter; wheel base, 5ft.; boiler,
10ft. 5in. long, 3ft. 4in. diameter, containing a single flue 20in. diameter; distance from top
of boiler to rails, 6ft.; from top of chimney to rails, 11ft. 1in.; chimney, 15in. diameter; total
length over all, 13ft. 6in. At the bottom of the chimney is a kind of smoke-box, measuring
about 2ft. 4in. high, 1ft. 8in. long, and 2ft. 4in. wide. The South Eastern Railway exhibited
the “Invicta,” at the jubilee of the Stockton and Darlington Railway in 1875, and at the
Newcastle Stephenson Centenary in 1881. The “Invicta,” when originally built, is said to
have had a tubular boiler.
 Fig. 18.—THE “INVICTA,” CANTERBURY AND WHITSTABLE RWY., 1830

The Directors of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway in 1829 ordered of Stephenson
and Co. seven engines of somewhat similar design to the “Rocket.” The Directors made
their first trip by railway from Liverpool to Manchester and back on Monday, June 14th,
1830. The train was drawn by the “Arrow,” and consisted of two carriages and seven
wagons; the total weight, including the engine, was 39 tons, the journey to Manchester
being made in two hours one minute, whilst the return trip to Liverpool only took one and a
half hours, a speed of 27 miles being attained for some distance.
The Liverpool and Manchester Railway was formally opened on September 15th, 1830,
when the “Northumbrian” (Fig. 19), driven by George Stephenson, hauled the train
consisting of the Duke of Wellington’s carriage, the band, etc., on one line, whilst the
“Phœnix,” “North Star,” “Rocket,” “Dart,” “Comet,” “Arrow,” and “Meteor,” each hauled a
train upon the other line. Starting from Liverpool, the eight trains proceeded towards
Manchester. At Parkside Mr. Huskisson was run over by the “Rocket,” and he was placed
on the “Northumbrian” and conveyed to Eccles in 25 minutes, or at the rate of 36 miles an
hour.
 Fig. 19.—THE “NORTHUMBRIAN,” THE ENGINE THAT OPENED THE LIVERPOOL
AND MANCHESTER RAILWAY

The Duke of Wellington’s carriage was now left without an engine, and a curious sight
was witnessed; a long chain was obtained, and the trains which had been up to this point
hauled by the “Phœnix” and “North Star,” consisting of ten carriages, were joined together.
The chain was then fixed to the Duke of Wellington’s train on the other line, and so the rest
of the journey was performed by the two engines and ten carriages on one line hauling
another train upon a parallel set of rails. It may be of interest to observe that the carriage
built for the Duke of Wellington was provided with eight wheels, so it will be noticed that
eight-wheeled passenger stock is not at all a modern introduction, but, on the contrary, has
been in use ever since the opening of the first railway built for the conveyance of
passengers. The vehicle in question was 32ft. long and 8ft. wide.
The two engines ordered by the Directors of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway of
Braithwaite and Ericsson after the style of the “Novelty,” were named “William the Fourth,”
(by special permission of that monarch) and “Queen Adelaide.” They were delivered to the
Liverpool and Manchester Railway immediately the railway was opened, and on
September 22nd, 1830, the “William the Fourth” ran off the rails on the Sankey Viaduct. A
very considerable number of trials were made with these locomotives on the Liverpool and
Manchester Railway; but, as was the case with Bury’s “Liverpool,” Stephenson strongly
objected to any other maker’s engines being used on the line, and he was, therefore,
always ready to find out some fault in the engines not of his construction tendered to the
company. Braithwaite and Ericsson claimed four great advantages for their class of
engines—viz., (1) the total absence of all smoke; (2) the dispensing with a chimney; (3) a
saving of 120 per cent. in the cost of the fuel, and of 30 per cent. in the space required to
store it; (4) a saving of 400 per cent. in the space occupied by the boilers.
Several improvements were introduced into the “William the Fourth,” and “Queen
Adelaide,” so that they differed somewhat from the “Novelty.” They were provided with four-
wheeled tenders, which were placed in front of the engines. The four wheels of the engines
were 5ft. in diameter, the wheel base being 6ft. 9in. The horizontal portion of the boiler was
8ft. long, the vertical portion, containing the fire, etc., being 6ft. 6in. high and 4ft. diameter.
The cylinders were vertical, but worked downwards; they were located one on each side of
the vertical portion of the boiler, and a little to the rear of the leading wheels, to which the
motion was conveyed by means of bell-cranks and connecting-rods—the latter joined the
axle within the wheels, so that the driving axle was cranked.
The next engine that requires our attention is the celebrated “Globe” (Fig. 20), designed
for the Stockton and Darlington Railway by Timothy Hackworth, and built by R. Stephenson
and Co. The “Globe” was built for passenger traffic; she was provided with a steam dome,
and was the first locomotive built with this advantageous appendage for obtaining dry
steam. The valve motion was reversible by a single lever. The heating surface was
provided for by means of a single fire-tube, whilst behind the fire-bridge, and extending to
the chimney, were seven small radiating tubes crossing the main flue.
This idea of Hackworth’s was afterwards introduced by Galloway in his stationary
engine boilers, and patented by him. The engine “Globe” had a cranked axle and inside
cylinders.
Hackworth explained the construction of the “Globe” to the Directors of the Stockton
and Darlington Railway, and he was instructed to go to Newcastle and arrange for the
building of the “Globe” by Stephenson and Co. He saw the officials at the Forth Street
Works on March 3rd, 1830, and after the examination of the plans there, it is stated that
one of the officials objected to the crank axle, saying “it would certainly involve a loss of
power, as the efficient length of lever could only be calculated from the inside of the journal
to the axle’s centre.” It is well known that Geo. Stephenson had previously seen Bury’s
“Liverpool,” and said of it, “My son has taken a fancy to the plan of the ‘Liverpool’ engine,
and intends to make immediately a small engine on the same principle.” Hackworth’s reply
to the objection to the crank axle was “that he held Stephenson responsible only for
supplying good workmanship, and not for any failure of the design, should such occur.”

Fig. 20.—HACKWORTH’S “GLOBE” FOR THE STOCKTON AND DARLINGTON

RAILWAY. THE FIRST LOCOMOTIVE WITH A STEAM DOME
On March 3rd, 1830, Hackworth, in company with Harris Dickinson, one of R.
Stephenson and Co.’s foremen, drove over to Bedlington Iron Works to order the boiler
plates required for the construction of the “Globe.”
 Hackworth remained at Newcastle till March 6th, and being satisfied that the
construction of the “Globe” would be immediately proceeded with, he returned to
Darlington, having obtained a promise of quick delivery. The boiler plates were delivered at
the Forth Street Works, April 14th, 1830.
The completion of the engine was, however, delayed until after R. Stephenson and Co.
had delivered the “Planet,” inside cylinder locomotive, to the Liverpool and Manchester
Railway. The “Globe” opened the Stockton and Middlesbrough Branch of the Stockton and
Darlington Railway on December 27th, 1830. Her speed frequently exceed 50 miles an
hour with passenger trains.
In consequence of a deficiency of water, she blew up in 1839. The engine was provided
with a copper globe for the purpose of obtaining dry steam—hence her name “Globe.” She
had four wheels, each of 5ft. diameter.

Fig. 21.—STEPHENSON’S “PLANET,” LIVERPOOL AND MANCHESTER RAILWAY

Stephenson soon put into practice the borrowed idea of inside cylinder locomotives, to
his own advantage, and on October 4th, 1830, he delivered the first engine of his
construction containing inside cylinders, placed in the smoke-box, as suggested to R.
Stephenson by Trevithick. This locomotive was named the “Planet,” and was constructed
for the Liverpool and Manchester Railway. The cylinders were 11in. diameter, stroke 16in.
The boiler was 6ft. 6in. long, 3ft. diameter, and contained 129 tubes. She weighed eight
tons; the driving wheels were 5ft. diameter, and were placed just in front of the fire-box.
The leading wheels were 3ft. diameter, and projected beyond the front of the smoke-box.
The frames were outside the wheels, and were of oak lined with iron plates. As the “Planet”
embodied several improvements not before used in the engines constructed by
Stephenson for the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, it is natural that the locomotive
should be able to perform better service than the earlier ones. On November 23rd, 1830,
she conveyed a train from Manchester to Liverpool in one hour, including a stop of two
minutes for water.
On December 4th, 1830, the “Planet” (Fig. 21) hauled a mixed train, weighing 76 tons
without the engine and convoy (tender) from Liverpool to Manchester in two hours thirty-
nine minutes’ running time.
Stephenson continued to supply various locomotives to the Liverpool and Manchester
Railway with different minor improvements; thus the “Mercury,” built in December, 1830,
had the outside frame placed above the driving axle, an improvement on the “Planet,”
which had the frames below the driving axle. But all these early engines of Stephenson
were of a very unsatisfactory character. Pambour, writing in 1834, says of them: “When an
engine requires any repair, unless it be for some trifling accident, it is taken to pieces and a
new one is constructed, which receives the same name as the first, and in the construction
of which are made to serve all such parts of the old engine as are still capable of being
used with advantage. The consequence of this is that a reconstructed or repaired engine is
literally a new one. The repairs amount thus to considerable sums, but they include also
the renewal of the engines.”
The directors of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway soon found the method of
working their heavy trains with four or five locomotives was far from economical, and
Stephenson was required to supply more powerful engines for the merchandise traffic. He,
therefore, built the “Samson” and “Goliath.” These were only four-wheel engines, but all the
wheels were made of one size and coupled together. The former was delivered in January,
1831, and on February 25th she conveyed a train weighing 164 tons (without reckoning the
weight of engine or tender) from Liverpool to Manchester in two and a half hours. The
dimensions of the engines were: Cylinders 14in. diameter, stroke 16in., wheels 4ft. 6in.
diameter, heating surface 457.10 sq. ft.
In 1831, the Directors of the Monkland and Kirkintilloch Railway decided to work their
line by locomotives, and instructed Mr. Dodd, their engineer, to design engines for the
purpose. He, however, merely adopted the plan used in the construction of the
“Locomotion” (Stockton and Darlington Railway), with the cylinders placed partly within the
boiler over the wheels, working by means of cross-heads and connecting-rods. He also
adopted the tubular boiler, which was, of course, wanting in the “Locomotion.” The engines
were constructed by Murdoch and Aitken, of Glasgow, and were the first locomotives built
in that city. The first was put to work on May 10th, 1831, and the second on September
10th, 1831. The boilers of these two locomotives were lagged with wood, and metallic
packing was for the first time employed in connection with the pistons. The cylinders were
10½in. diameter, stroke 24in., steam pressure 50lb. The locomotives were supported on
four coupled wheels, the coupling-rods having ball-and-socket joints at each end. A speed
of six miles an hour was attained with Dodd’s engines, and, although of rough design, they
were much more economical in fuel and repairs than the engines supplied about the same
time by Stephenson to the neighbouring Glasgow and Garnkirk Railway. These latter two
engines were named the “St. Rollox” and “George Stephenson.” Their dimensions were as
follows:—
Diameter Wheels Weight in
of Stroke.
Driving. Leading. working order.
cylinders.
St. Rollox 11in. 14in. 4ft. 6in. 36½in. 6 tons.
George Stephenson 11in. 16in. 4ft. 6in. 4ft. 6in. 8 tons.

The gauge of this line was only 4ft. 6in. The “St. Rollox” cost the G. and G. Railway
about £750; that company sold it to the Paisley and Renfrew Railway for £350, and the
latter, in December, 1848, when the gauge of their line was altered, disposed of the
locomotive by auction for £13. It had wooden wheels. At the same auction the other two
locomotives of the Paisley and Renfrew Railway were also sold, and realised only 20
guineas each, although about ten years previously the Paisley and Renfrew Railway had
paid Murdoch, Aitken, and Co. £1,100 for each of them. They were six-wheel tank engines.
The Scotch engines we have just been describing, all burnt coal in place of coke, and as
they caused a good deal of smoke they were much objected to on that account.
We have previously stated that upon the advice of two engineers the Directors of the
Liverpool and Manchester Railway had refrained from purchasing more locomotives from
E. Bury, but other people soon saw the good points of his engines, and in 1832 the
Liverpool and Manchester Railway considered it policy to purchase another locomotive
from the Clarence Foundry. This engine was called the “Liver.” She had cylinders 11in.
diameter, 16in. stroke, and driving wheels 5ft. diameter. The “Liver” worked very
successfully, and in 1836 her fire-box was altered to burn coal, but this experiment turned
out somewhat of a failure.
Towards the end of 1831, and during 1832, the increasing traffic on the Stockton and
Darlington Railway made a considerable increase in the number of locomotives necessary.
Hackworth designed two new classes of engines to work the trains. One type was known
as the “Majestic” class, and six engines of this description were soon at work.
The “Majestic” locomotives had each six-coupled wheels. The heating surface was
obtained from a tube 9ft. long, 2ft. 6in. diameter, one end of which communicated with the
fire-grate; the other was divided from the boiler by a partition-plate, inserted in which were
104 copper tubes 4ft. long, and reaching to the smoke-box. It should be observed that the
boiler was 13ft. long. The cylinders were fixed in a vertical position in front of the smoke-
box, the connecting-rods working on a straight shaft or axle parallel with the wheel axles:
this driving shaft was coupled by outside rods to the six wheels. The slide-valves had “lap,”
and were worked by two eccentrics, which also worked the force pumps. The engine was
reversed by means of a single lever. This class of engines included:—

“Majestic,” built by Hackworth.

“Coronation,” built by Hawthorn.
“William the Fourth,” built by Hackworth.
“Northumbrian,” built by Hackworth.
“Director,” built by Stephenson.
“Lord Brougham,” built by Hackworth.

All of them were built from Hackworth’s designs, the leading dimensions being:
Cylinders, 14½in. diameter, stroke, 16in.; boiler, 13ft. long, 3ft. 10in. diameter; weight of
engine—empty, 10¼ tons; full, 11¾ tons. The other class of engines designed by
Hackworth at this time included:—

“Darlington,” built by Hawthorn.

“Shildon,” built by Hackworth.
“Earl Grey,” built by Hawthorn.
“Lord Durham,” built by Stephenson.
“Adelaide,” built by Stephenson.
“Wilberforce,” built by Hawthorn.
 “Wilberforce,” an illustration of which is given (Fig. 22), was built by Hawthorn, of
Newcastle, and commenced to work in 1832; it had six coupled wheels 4ft. in diameter; the
cylinders were 14¾in., with 16in. stroke. Like many of the locomotives of that period, the
“Wilberforce,” as will be observed, had two tenders, one at each end of the engine. On the
tender at the front end, which only carried coals (the fire-door being at the chimney end of
the engines), the fireman stood; whilst the other tender, at the foot-plate end, carried water
in a barrel, and also the tool boxes. The engine wheels were made of two separate
castings or rings, and the axles were all straight, the crank-shaft being carried in separate
bearings beneath the foot-plate. There were no tail lamps in those early days; to make up
for this deficiency a cresset containing burning coal was used. In some cases, when it was
necessary to indicate the destination of the engine, or the section to which it belonged, as
many as three of these cressets of glowing coals were employed on the same locomotive.

Fig. 22.—“WILBERFORCE,” A STOCKTON & DARLINGTON RAILWAY LOCOMOTIVE

On certain favourable gradients the “Wilberforce” was capable of taking 36 loaded
chaldron wagons, equal to about 171 tons, and its coal consumption is given as 68lb. per
mile. During the year ending June, 1839, this engine ran 16,688 miles, conveyed 635,522
tons over one mile, and cost £318 10s. 8d., or 4.5d. per mile run, for repairs. The wages of
the driver and fireman during the same period amounted to £353 12s. 8d.
The engines of this class, in their time, performed a greater amount of work than any
others then existing. As late as 1846 one of the principal officials of the Stockton and
Darlington Railway said of them: “Take them, weight for weight, they surpass any engine
on the line.”
The cylinders were 14½in. diameter, 16in. stroke; the valve gearing, wheels, etc., were
similar to the “Majestic” class, but the cylinders were fixed on a framing extending 6ft.
beyond the boiler over the driving shaft, which was coupled to the six wheels, each of 4ft.
diameter.
The heating surface of the engines was on a different system, a “return multitubular fire-
tube” being employed. This comprised a principal tube 8ft. long and 28in. diameter at the
fire-grate end, and 24in. at the other. Here was fixed a D-shaped box; from this, 89 copper
tubes conveyed the heated air back through the boiler to the semi-circular box fixed at the
fire-grate end; the chimney came out of this smoke-box extension. These flues proved
most economical, many lasting as long as six years, and, when necessary, duplicate ones
could be fixed, and the engine again at work in three days. The boiler was 10ft. long and
4ft. 4in. diameter, weight of engine 10¼ tons empty, 11¾ tons loaded.
 The “Magnet,” built by Hackworth, at Shildon, in 1832, was an improvement on the
above. The cylinders were 15in. diameter, 16in. stroke. The fire-tube at the furnace end
was 2ft. diameter, and was divided in the middle by a 4in. fire-brick partition. The number of
return tubes was 110. These were 7ft. 6in. long. Hackworth was at this time hauling all the
trains on the Stockton and Darlington Railway by contract, at the rate of 2-5d. per ton of
goods per mile; afterwards reduced to a still lower price. He paid the Stockton and
Darlington Railway interest at 5 per cent. on the cost of locomotives employed on the line,
which were the property of the Stockton and Darlington Railway Company, but leased to
him.

Fig. 23.—GALLOWAY’S “CALEDONIAN,” BUILT FOR THE LIVERPOOL AND

MANCHESTER RAILWAY IN 1832
An engine named “Caledonian” (Fig. 23) was supplied to the Liverpool and Manchester
Railway in 1832, by Galloway, Borman and Co. She had inside frames, four coupled
wheels 5ft. diameter, and a domed fire-box. The curious point about the locomotive was the
location of the cylinders, which were placed on the frame in front of the smoke-box, and
were fixed vertically, with the piston-rods working through the upper cover, connecting-rods
working downwards to the leading wheels, the axle of which was below the frames, in front
of the smoke-box.
As might be expected, the “Caledonian” was far from being an easy-running locomotive,
and, after several times running off the rails, she was rebuilt with inside cylinders and a
crank axle.
 CHAPTER V.
A Stephenson “bogie” engine for America—The genesis of a world-
famous locomotive film—Its initial effort in locomotive construction, the
“Experiment”—Her cylinder valves—Two early Scotch locomotives—
Stephenson favours 6-wheel engines, and constructs the “Patentee”—
Forrester’s “Swiftsure”—Opening of the Newcastle and Carlisle Rwy.—
The “Comet”— R. Stephenson’s early “ultimatum,” the “Harvey Combe”
—Hackworth to the front with a locomotive novelty— The first
locomotive in Russia—The “Goliath”—The “Tyne” and her steam organ
—Other early Newcastle and Carlisle Rwy. engines—An engine-
driver’s reminiscences —No eight hours day then—The “Michael
Longridge”— Opening of the Grand Junction Rwy.—Its first
locomotives.
R. Stephenson and Co., in 1833, constructed a locomotive for the
Saratoga and Schenectady Rail Road of America, which deserves
mention from the fact that it had a leading bogie, rendered necessary
because of the sharp curves on the Saratoga and Schenectady Rail
Road. R. Stephenson named this locomotive the “Bogie,” because
the low wagons used on the quarries at Newcastle were locally
called “bogies,” and it was from these vehicles that he developed the
idea of providing a small truck to carry the leading end of the
locomotive in question. Ever since 1833 the swivelling truck used for
supporting locomotives and other railway rolling stock has, in
England, been designated the “bogie.”
Richard Roberts, of the firm of Sharp, Roberts and Co. (the
predecessors of Sharp, Stewart and Co., Limited), in the year 1833,
turned his attention to locomotive construction. His initial effort was
of a somewhat novel kind. Four locomotives of his first design were
constructed, one—“Experiment”—for the Liverpool and Manchester
Railway, and the others for the Dublin and Kingstown Railway. The
cylinders, which were 11in. diameter, were placed in a vertical
position on the frames, just at the point were the boiler entered the
smoke-box. By means of cross-heads and side-links the motion was
conveyed to a bell-crank, and so transmitted by a connecting-rod to
the driving wheels. There was, of course, a similar arrangement of
cylinder, crank, etc., on both sides of the engine. The stroke was
16in. The driving wheels, 5ft. in diameter, were placed in front of the
fire-box, and had inside bearings; the leading wheels were located
below the vertical cylinders, and had outside bearings. The pump
was placed in a horizontal position above the frame over the driving
wheels, and was worked by a rod actuated by the vertical member of
the bell-crank.
The “Experiment” (Fig. 24) was unsuccessful, and was rebuilt,
when a third pair of wheels was added, and the position of the
cylinders, bell-crank, etc., altered. The valves were, also of a novel
kind, patented by Mr. Roberts in 1832. Colburn thus describes them:
“The valve, of wrought-iron, was formed of two concentric tubes or
pipes, the larger pipe having holes perforated to admit steam from
the steam-pipe into the annular space. This annular space was
closed steam-tight at each end of the valve, and steam could only
escape from it alternately to each end of the cylinder through the
slots. The exhaust steam passed from one end of the cylinder
directly into the waste pipe, and from the other end it traversed the
interior of the pipe of the cylindrical valve. These valves did not work
well, as they did not expand equally with their cast-iron casings when
heated by steam. For this reason the cylinder valves were soon
abandoned. It should be mentioned that, in Mr. Roberts’ first
engines, the valve for each cylinder was worked with a motion
derived from the opposite side of the engine. No eccentrics were
employed, the requisite motion being taken from a pin near the
fulcrum of each bell-crank, and transmitted thence through suitable
gearing to the valve attached to the cylinder on the opposite side of
the engine.”
 Fig. 24.—ROBERTS’S “EXPERIMENT,” WITH VERTICAL
CYLINDERS, BELL-CRANK, CONNECTING-ROD,
AND CYLINDER VALVES

The engines used on the Dundee and Newtyle Railway,

constructed in 1833, partook somewhat of the character of Roberts’s
“Experiment,” inasmuch that right-angled cranks and vertical
cylinders were employed, the diameter of the latter being 11in., and
stroke 18in. These engines were named “Earl of Airlie” and “Lord
Wharncliffe,” and were constructed by J. and C. Carmichael, of
Dundee. Both these engines were delivered at the end of
September, 1833. The “single” driving wheels were placed in the
leading position, the axle being just behind the smoke-box. The
cylinders were placed on the side frames, about midway between
the two ends.
The piston-rods worked upwards, and the motion was conveyed
by means of rods from the piston cross-heads. These connecting-
rods passed down outside the pistons, and were connected to one
end of the bell-cranks, which were fixed beyond the cylinders, with
the pivots over the centre of the second pair of wheels. From the
lower ends of the bell-cranks the driving-rods were pivoted, the other
ends being connected to the outside cranks of the driving wheels.
The fire-box end of the engines was supported on a four-wheel truck
or bogie. These engines weighed 9½ tons each, and cost £700
each. An ordinary four-wheel wagon, fitted with a water-butt, was
used for a tender.
An engine of similar design was ordered from Stirling and Co., of
the East Foundry, Dundee, and delivered on March 3rd, 1834.
Mr. A. Sturrock, the first manager of Swindon Works, and
afterwards locomotive superintendent of the Great Northern Railway,
helped to construct this engine, which was named “Trotter.” Mr.
Sturrock was at the time an apprentice at the East Foundry.
The gauge of the Dundee and Newtyle Railway was only 4ft. 6in.,
but when the line was taken over by the Dundee and Perth Railway
the gauge was altered to the normal gauge of Great Britain. The
original engine, “Earl of Airlie,” after some alteration, of course, could
not run on the railway, but for some years after the change the “Earl
of Airlie” was employed as a stationary pumping engine.
Stephenson’s four-wheel passenger engines with a short wheel
base were found to be very unsteady at the very moderate speeds
then attained, and he, therefore, added a pair of trailing wheels, thus
constructing a six-wheel “single” passenger engine. Stephenson
considered that the moderate wheel base of these small engines
with six wheels would, on the easy curves of the Liverpool and
Manchester Railway, offer considerable resistance, so he took out a
patent, in which he provided that the middle or driving pair of wheels
should be without flanges (or flanchès, as they were then called). He
claimed that by this modification the six-wheel passenger engine
would pass round curves with much less strain and greater safety.
The first engine so constructed by Stephenson he designated the
“Patentee,” and she was delivered to the Liverpool and Manchester
Railway in January, 1834. She had outside frames, inside cylinders,
18in. stroke, 12in. diameter; the driving wheels were 5ft. diameter.
George Forrester and Co., Vauxhall Foundry, Liverpool, in 1834
constructed a six-wheel engine named “Swiftsure.” This locomotive
possessed many novel features. It had outside horizontal cylinders;
the frames were also outside, thus making the cylinders a
considerable distance apart. The connecting-rods were keyed on
cranks, at some distance outside the frames, whilst the fact that the
driving wheels were not counterbalanced caused the engines of this
class to be most unsteady at even moderate speeds, and they were
soon known by the sobriquet of “Boxers.” Colburn says: “A few
pounds of iron properly disposed in the rims of the driving wheels
would have redeemed the reputation of these engines.” The
arrangement of cylinders and frames allowed the leading wheels to
be placed well forward, the total length of the frames of the
“Swiftsure” being 17ft. The driving wheels were 5ft. diameter, and the
cylinders 11in.; the stroke was 18in.

Fig. 25.—HAWTHORN’S “COMET,” THE FIRST ENGINE OF

THE NEWCASTLE AND CARLISLE RAILWAY, 1835
In the “Boxer” Forrester employed his patent valve gear, with
vertical gab ends and four eccentrics.
A portion of the Newcastle and Carlisle Railway was opened
March 9th, 1835, and R. and W. Hawthorn constructed the first
engines for that railway. No. 1 was the “Comet,” (Fig. 25), a four-
wheel (coupled) locomotive; the cylinders (12in. diameter, 16in.
stroke) were placed below the smoke-box, the connecting-rods
passing under the leading axle. The wheels were 4ft. diameter.
Hawthorn’s valve gear was used in the engines of this class, which
was actuated by four fixed eccentrics. The “Comet” continued to
work on the Newcastle and Carlisle Railway for a number of years,
and was afterwards used as a stationary engine for driving the steam
saws at the Forth Bank Engine Works, Newcastle. She was so
engaged up to and subsequently to 1863.
About 1836 short-stroke locomotives came into favour, and
Tayleur and Co. built ten for the Liverpool and Manchester Railway.
Although the cylinders were 14in. diameter, the stroke was only 12in.
We need scarcely add the experiment was not successful, although
some of the original broad-gauge engines were built with short
strokes. These will, however, be dealt with fully later on.
In 1836 R. Stephenson and Co. constructed the “Harvey Combe”
locomotive. She was a ballast engine, and was engaged in the
construction of the London and Birmingham Railway. R. Stephenson
had a minute description of this engine written by W. P. Marshall, and
the work in question is stated to be “the most perspicuous and the
illustrations of the most elaborate kind of any work describing a
locomotive.”
The fact that at once strikes the intelligent reader as peculiar is
that, although the “Harvey Combe” was designed “for conveying the
earth excavated in the construction of a line of railway,” as Marshall
“perspicuously” puts it (but which we should shortly describe as a
“ballast” engine), she is a “single” engine! and, therefore, is not much
like a modern six-coupled ballast engine. She cost £1,400, and was
of 50 horse-power.
The principal dimensions of the “Harvey Combe” were: Cylinders,
12in. by 18in.; driving wheels, 5ft., and leading and trailing 3ft. 6in.
diameter; 102 tubes, 1⅝in. internal diameter; total heating surface,
480ft.; weight, empty, 10 tons; with fuel and water, 11 tons 18 cwt.
No flanges were provided to the driving wheels. Although the
“Harvey Combe” was built for, and had rough usage as, a ballast
engine, yet, when at the end of 1837 Nicholas Wood was making
experiments for the purposes of his report to the Great Western
Railway as to the broad-gauge, the “Harvey Combe” was the
principal narrow-gauge engine with which he experimented. With a
gross load (including engine, etc.) of 81 tons, she attained a speed
of 25 to 53 miles an hour, and consumed 0.47lb. of coke per ton per
mile. With a gross load of 50 tons the speed reached was only 32.88
miles an hour, with the above coal consumption.
In 1836, Hackworth built a locomotive of novel construction—viz.,
with double-acting ram or trunk engines, by means of which piston-
rods were dispensed with, the connecting-rods being pivoted directly
on to the piston and oscillated within the trunk.
This was the first locomotive engine ever seen in Russia. She
commenced work on the Zarskoe-Selo Railway on November 18th,
1836, a religious service being held and the locomotive consecrated
before the first train was run. Of this engine the Russian Emperor
remarked in English, “It is the finest I ever saw.” An old officer of the
Stockton and Darlington Railway, informs the writer that a locomotive
on the double-acting trunk principle was also built by Hackworth for
that line, and so far as his memory serves him, he believes it was the
“Arrow” passenger engine. The “Arrow” had leading and trailing
wheels 3ft. 6in. diameter; driving wheels, 5ft. 6in. diameter; 135
tubes in the boiler of 1¾in. diameter; cylinders, 20in. in diameter, and
with a stroke of only 9in.!
We have already mentioned the first engine (the “Comet”)
supplied to the Newcastle and Carlisle Railway, but several of the
other early locomotives used on that line were powerful ones, and
their design in advance of the generality of locomotives then in use.
Thus, the “Goliath,” one of the first engines supplied to the line by
Hawthorn, in March, 1837, hauled a train consisting of 63 wagons of
coal, weighing 267 tons, 12 miles in less than 40 minutes.
The “Goliath” had six-coupled wheels 4ft. diameter, cylinders
14in. diameter, 18in. stroke. Total heating surface 550.91 sq. ft.
Weight, empty, 11¾ tons; in working order, 13 tons. The “Atlas,” built
by R. Stephenson and Co. in 1836, drew a train of 100 wagons,
loaded with coal, coke, and lime, and weighing 450 tons, 10¾ miles