OO cleared in third case of amblyopia

The third optometrist in four weeks has appeared before the GOC's disciplinary committee regarding a seven-year-old anisometropic amblyopia sufferer. By the time Emily Swift, who is now aged 11, was seen at Eastbourne General District Hospital it was too late and her vision had further deteriorated. At last week's hearing it was claimed that Brighton-based Catriona Gardiner did not carry out adequate tests on Emily in April 2001 and failed to either treat her 'lazy eye' condition or refer her. The girl's mother took her daughter to Redgold Opticians, Seaford several times but it was not until she went to the family GP that a referral to hospital was recommended. Emily had been treated there but the hearing was told that the specialist who had seen her reported back that the treatment was too late to do anything. Called as an expert witness, Aston University's Sarah Hosking said: 'If Mrs Gardiner had examined properly, the patient's vision could have been treated. By not bringing in a specialist sooner it was not possible to improve her vision loss. In fact there was a decline in her eyesight.' Cross-examined by Gardiner's barrister, Sandhya Kapila, Dr Hosking dismissed Gardiner's original explanation to the GOC that Emily's eye condition would not improve with treatment, and that there was 'accepted wisdom' in the profession that to treat children with lazy eyes after the age of seven was not going to be successful. 'The age group is irrelevant,' said Dr Hosking. 'There is no cut-off point.' Gardiner herself told the hearing: 'No treatment would have been of any benefit to Emily. I know this through my experience in working with children in hospital.' There would have been risks in treating the young girl with what would be 'uncomfortable' procedures. 'The risks and hardships involved were not worth it. I made a decision that her age was against her,' she added. The committee found proved the allegations that Gardiner had failed to treat and refer Emily to a specialist. The committee cleared Gardiner of allegations that on April 10, 2001 she had failed to assess the girl's near vision and the visual acuity of her right eye. It then heard submissions from Kapila as to whether or not the allegations could amount to serious professional misconduct. Kapila said her client had not fallen beneath the standards expected from a reasonably competent optometrist. Gardiner had discussed Emily's condition with her mother, acted on the basis of her experience, and added that the OO was not legally obliged to refer Emily to see anyone else. 'She was entitled not to refer her if she thought fit.' This failure could be regarded as a 'professional error' Ð and the committee knew that not every professional error could amount to serious professional misconduct. Committee chairman David Pyle announced: 'On the evidence we have heard we are satisfied that the child should have been referred in April 2001 and that might have been the action of a reasonably competent optometrist. 'However, given everything we have heard about you, we are not persuaded that this, along with the other matters which have been admitted and proved, amount to a serious falling short as opposed to a regrettable error of judgement. 'Therefore we have found you not guilty of serious professional misconduct.'