Optometrist warned for failing to maintain registration

An optometrist has received an official warning after she tested hundreds of patients while  unregistered. The practitioner said it was an administrative oversight on her part.

At a GOC fitness to practise hearing earlier this week Cardiff optometrist Vikki Ann Baker was alleged to have tested the sight of 1,737 patients between April 30 2004 and March 16 2005 when not registered. It was also alleged that she was guilty of misconduct because of the first allegation.

The panel found the allegation on sight testing proven and admitted, and the allegation of misconduct proven. She received the ticking off on Monday (May 8), and was told it was a 'fundamental professional obligation for optometrists to be registered at all times when practising'.

For the GOC Bradley Albuery had told the hearing that Baker's actions had been 'aggravated' by her continuing to test patients after she was informed of the problem by Amanda Davies, Newport Local Health Board's head of primary care, on February 25 2005.

Giving evidence, Davies said: 'I spoke to her on three occasions up to March 11 2005, and on that date she was continuing to dismiss the idea of registering immediately. I was quite concerned. Her reason for waiting was not given.'

The hearing was told that new tests were being considered for patients involved, and fees for them paid by the NHS will have to be returned by the company she was working for, R W Cole Opticians, Newport.

The fitness to practise panel said the responsibility of registration was 'well understood and acknowledged as a fundamental professional obligation'.

'[We] found the registrant's evidence of her failure to register as the result of administrative oversight and personal circumstances unacceptable.' It also 'noted with concern that even when made aware of her failure to register she continued to practise for a further short period of time'.

A spokesman for the panel said: 'Continued professional registration is a fundamental obligation and requirement for practise as an optometrist.  The committee views with serious concern the registrant's protracted failure to comply with this and apparent lack of awareness of the need to maintain her registration while continuing in her daily work as an optometrist. 

The committee anticipates that the registrant will have identified clearly the issues that her conduct has raised and learn from these proceedings in respect to her future professional conduct. We trust therefore that the registrant will heed this warning.'