Omen writes

The interpretation of supervision in relation to clinical work and in particular to the eye examination and dispensing has been a source of much argument for as long as I can remember. The view that seemed to prevail was that supervision of clinical work required the supervisor to be on the premises and in a position to intervene.

However, it has always been made clear that the only way that a substantive interpretation could be made was through the establishment of case law. Such a decision was made in the case of the supply of contact lenses at a magistrates court level and more recently we have seen one of the GOC's fitness to practise panels provide an interpretation relating to dispensing to persons under the age of 16. It should be understood that in both of these cases the determination has been made by a lower court and could be challenged on appeal to higher courts with a final decision being made by the Supreme Court. However, we now have a decision in relation to dispensing which will have a major influence on future behaviour. This may not be popular with those who take a highly commercial attitude towards the supply of spectacles with the emphasis on reducing staff overheads and using unqualified staff to undertake dispensing. In this respect unqualified embraces both pre-registration opticians and optometrists and optical assistants.