Muddled thinking

Job for the GOC alone. It is hardly surprising that people are now confused and aim their fury at any or all of these possibilities. It does no harm to take a step backwards and look at the fundamental principles which underpin the CET debate. The first of these is why is CET necessary for a optometrists, dispensing opticians or indeed any other profession? The answer is quite simple; you cannot do your job properly, fulfil the expectations of your patients or justify the monopoly which you enjoy unless you keep up to date with clinical, scientific and technical advances. The second is how CET should be provided. Should it be organised or simply left to chance? Does it need a Directorate of Optometric Continuing Education and Training or should it be left to local associations, journals and universities to do their own thing without any coordination? The combination of a co-ordinated scheme with providers able to fit their own programmes into it as appropriate gives a flexibility which allows a wide choice of content and standard to suit individuals. It also ensures a minimum acceptable level which can be coped with by the average practitioner. Among the confusing issues is the perceived threat of re-qualification. Early in this debate I indicated that the College and GOC had to be sensitive to the dangers of this move. So far there has been no suggestion that there will be statutory examinations to retain GOC registration. The validation and assessment of CET is a very different and far less onerous requirement but one which will clearly demonstrate to the public that the profession takes its public healthcare role seriously. This does not mean, as some disinformation suggests, that all members of the profession will be expected to acquire qualifications in shared care, but that all opticians should maintain their skills at a safe but basic level.