The GOC reviewed and responded to the outcomes of its Education Strategic Review (ESR) consultation at a council meeting on November 11.
During the meeting, the Council agreed the ESR’s proposals should be reviewed by the GOC’s expert advisory groups (EAG). February 2021 was set as the date for the proposals to be agreed, with the EAGs given time to incorporate feedback from the consultation.
Launched in July, the ESR sought to gather industry and stakeholder views on proposals to update GOC requirements for qualification as an optometrist or dispensing optician. Throughout the consultation period, which ended on October 19, a number of organisations made clear that they held concerns over some of the ESR’s proposals.
The Association of British Dispensing Opticians (ABDO), Association of Optometrists (AOP) and the College all contributed to the discourse, with areas including the ESR’s possible financial impact for education providers and inconsistent standards of entry to the profession noted as key concerns.
In its statement, the GOC explained: ‘The Council agreed the GOC’s EAGs should review and refine the proposals, including responding to concerns that the outcomes in the clinical practice categories required further development, while retaining its high-level outcomes-orientated approach. It also agreed that further work was needed in communicating the concept of the single point of accountability.’
The GOC admitted that its consultation on the ESR ‘identified that the clinical practice outcomes require strengthening without losing its outcomes-orientated focus… with greater differentiation between clinical practice outcomes for dispensing opticians and optometrists, although some respondents argued that each profession should have two sequential sets of outcomes (and associated standards) leading to entry to the register.’
Financial Impact Assessment
Responding to concerns over the possibility of increased costs for education providers if the ESR’s proposals were implemented, the GOC commissioned a financial impact assessment with Hugh Jones Consulting.
Commenting on the results of this impact assessment, the GOC explained: ‘The financial impact assessment demonstrates that even after all the additional, estimated costs, including estimated costs of quality assurance, placement management and visits, supervision, student support and costs of any related assessments which may take place in practice, providers of approved qualifications will have an additional resource available to them of £100 (worst case, Scotland) and £4,500 (best case, England) per student for the 48 weeks professional and clinical experience, howsoever organised.’
Owing to full tuition fee support and funding regulations not precluding students being paid a salary during their 48 weeks of experience, the GOC claimed: ‘The concept of integration is at worst cost neutral, and at best, financially advantageous for providers in optometry and dispensing optics.’
A cautious welcome
ABDO, which contributed to the Council’s EAGs and provided feedback throughout the consultation period, has welcomed recognition that the ESR’s proposals need reviewing. However, an association statement added: ‘ABDO continues to have a number of serious concerns about the GOC’s proposals and its planned approach.’
The GOC’s decision to push approval for the new proposals to February 2021 was labelled ‘wholly unrealistic’ by ABDO, which said: ‘This short delay is apparently to allow its two EAGs to incorporate the feedback from the recent consultation, but this provides nowhere near sufficient time given the scale of the work involved and other demands on the time of the EAG’s members, particularly in light of the current pandemic.’
ABDO’s statement concluded by noting its continued commitment to working with the GOC to ensure that students are educated to a high standard, but clarified: ‘In order to secure broad support for whatever new system of education is introduced, the GOC must be able to show that it has assessed the costs, benefits and risks associated with not just its proposed new model, but with alternative models too.’
