General Optical Council warns Frith over fields and records

The General Optical Council fitness to practise committee has warned optometrist Robert Frith that his professional performance was ‘deficient’, but ruled that his fitness to practise is not impaired.

The verdict was announced last week after a two-day hearing. It was alleged, firstly, that Frith did not undertake visual field tests on a patient between 1982 and 2004; secondly, that he did not record the patient’s family history of glaucoma on record cards after 1982; and thirdly, he failed to keep adequate records.

Frith, whose group Robert Frith Optometrists has 10 practices mainly in the South West, admitted the first two allegations but denied failing to complete adequate records and deficient professional performance.

The hearing was told Frith had examined the 80-year-old patient 17 times in 22 years but failed to pick up her glaucoma.

Denying his actions fell below reasonably competent standards, Frith said he had had no reasons to carry out a visual field test. In his experience, family history was not as significant a factor in glaucoma as prevailing professional opinion suggested and could lead to unnecessary field tests.

Sandhya Kapila, representing Frith, said: ‘He told you why he judged not to do visual field tests. Nowhere in the guidelines should it be done every five years…it’s left to the judgment of the practitioner.’

The committee found Frith’s professional performance deficient with respect to the first and third allegations but not the second. However, the committee found his fitness to practise was not impaired given evidence of remedial action, testimonial evidence of good character and that this was Frith’s first complaint in 37 years.

It did, however, issue the following warning: ‘Experience alone does not guarantee an acceptable standard of performance. The committee requires that you take heed of current best practice in respect of appropriate diagnostic tests and patient record keeping.

‘Public confidence in the profession can be maintained only by consistent application of acceptable standards of practice by registrants. Not withstanding your considerable experience you must ensure your practice in both these areas does not fall below that standard.’