Time for action

Such a case inevitably has its wider implications. For example, it raises the question of whether there is a threshold figure for personal daily output which, if exceeded, would ipso facto expose the individual to a charge of serious professional misconduct? One hopes there is not, in that it is surely possible for an experienced practitioner to exceed an arbitrarily fixed ceiling and still provide an adequate service. We must all have encountered practitioners who regularly work much faster than others without complaint, and we have, in addition, to recognise the time savings accruing from the use of computerised instrumentation. As a mere scribe I am not, of course, qualified to suggest the sort of daily threshold figure above which an ophthalmic optician might proceed at his peril. An indication of 'professional propriety' was, however, provided by an expert witness in the case. In his considered opinion 20 minutes was a reasonable amount of time for an eye examination, and the shortest acceptable period was at least 10 minutes. Whether that is so is a matter for others to judge. My purpose in concentrating on the various timings mentioned in the case is because of their obvious relevance to the ongoing NHS sight testing fee controversy.