Mild disagreement with this statement, unless you substitute “may be better” or even “is usually/often better” for the absolute “is actually better.” Continuity and familiarity are certainly advantages, but IMO they aren’t the only factors to take into consideration. Sometimes an extra set of eyes and ears might detect something in the patient that the first person (whether it's the MD or NP) hasn't seen. Also, I don’t know what you mean by “better”. Is a patient’s confidence at all a factor in whether the diagnosis or treatment is “better”?
But surely in that 28 years there were times that a patient insisted – or maybe just suggested – that they see the doctor, and you thought it was a good or at least a reasonable idea. And I’m guessing in that 28 years there were times that you yourself suggested a patient see the doctor.
I agree with the protocol. My personal preference is that the doctor occasionally see the patient (doesn’t need to alternate), but I have no problem with your system if the doctor is available at some point. The problem we were having was that she didn't seem to be available at all.
Another example – last summer I had swelling in my knee. I called the orthopedist and the first person who had an available appointment was a PA. She manipulated by knee and said “You have a torn meniscus.” An MRI confirmed the diagnosis. She provided initial treatment and ultimately recommended scoping. I had complete confidence in the recommendation, not only from my overall impression of her, but I also figured that I probably had a “routine” torn meniscus (other than possibly that it was caused by wear and tear rather than an injury), and an orthopedic PA probably has seen hundreds of torn meniscuses (menisci?). But if I had reason to believe that there was something unusual, or if I were a professional athlete and my livelihood depended on proper diagnosis and treatment, then I might have felt differently.