Second OO cleared over child's squint

In the space of five days, GOC disciplinary committees cleared two optometrists of serious professional misconduct regarding eye examinations carried out on the same child. Cambridge-based optometrist Dr Graham Macalister followed the case of George Hale Ð which was reported in our October 1 edition Ð in relation to the boy, though the charges and cases were entirely separate. In Hale's case, the child was examined in August 2001, whereas Macalister examined the boy a year later, on September 8 2002. In Macalister's case the particulars of the charge were that the optometrist did not carry out appropriate retinoscopy, did not assess the results of refraction adequately, and also failed to assess binocular status and comitance adequately. At the hearing he was accused of failing to spot a squint in the three-year-old, and told his parents to bring him back in a year's time. Four months later a routine pre-school health screening found the youngster had reduced vision in his left eye in which he had a squint, it was claimed. Bradley Albuery, for the council, told the committee it was the opinion of his expert witness, optometrist Angela Bishop, that the 'omissions and errors of Dr Macalister fell below the standard expected of a reasonably competent optometrist.' The boy's father told the hearing: 'He said my son's eyes were OK. I mentioned the squint. He said my son's eyes were fine.' The father also claimed the examination lasted about 10 minutes. Bishop said there was no record of the boy's vision in the patient's notes and no history of the fact that the mother suffered long-sightedness, which was a 'significant factor' she said. Macalister, who insisted the youngster was in fact accompanied by his mother, said he noted her concerns about her own eye prescription. He told the hearing the risk was at the back of his mind. He maintained he asked about a squint but was told there was no history. He said in his view there was nothing to refer the boy for. When asked how he reconciled his findings of no squint and the fact that one was diagnosed four months later, Macalister responded: 'I think the squint developed during that time.'