Omen writes: Improved pre-reg system is welcome

The first results of the College of Optometrists new Pre Registration Period have been announced and justifiably welcomed not only by the successful candidates but by the optical world generally.

Unlike the controversy surrounding A Level and GCSE results, the reported improvement in the pass rate cannot be put down to grade inflation.

The inordinately long and sometimes difficult gestation of this new system of assessment has, through the careful planning of the College, resulted in a robust competence-based system of in-practice assessment and a final examination which is objective, fairer on the students and provides added reassurance and protection for patients.

This approach should strengthen the single entry route for registering UK-based students and provides a competence base for comparison with overseas qualifications.

Alongside this are the implications of the Department of Health’s review of the regulation of the non-medical healthcare professions. In relation to professionals the report emphasises the importance of the role of the regulators in setting standards and ensuring that educators and students meet them is ‘the heart of professional regulation’.

Following Shipman and various other high-profile problems, there is an emphasis on other areas of fitness to practise such as health and good character. While the call for a unified approach to this across the regulators is understandable and desirable, the General Optical Council has already taken a lead in developing a modern fitness to practise approach in all these areas.

A second issue arises from that part of the report which deals with the regulation of staff with lower levels of qualification. Reading this section leads one to the inevitable conclusion that, despite the Government’s oft-expressed policy to reduce the level of regulation generally, there is more to come for the professions.

Despite the availability of training courses for optical support staff there has, in the past, been little interest in taking these up. On-the-job training is often informal and where there is formal training this is not to a nationally agreed standard.

Although unpalatable to some, the logic behind the argument to regulate support staff is sound. Just as there is a move to utilise the skills of healthcare professionals by broadening their scope of practice some of the work formerly done by those professionals is being delegated to support staff. It is, therefore, essential that both the public and professionals should have confidence in the competence of staff to work as clinical assistants.

The Worshipful Company of Spectacle Makers has taken an initiative to develop courses for support staff, as has Anglia Ruskin University, and there are now a number of NVQs for the optical sector. The question is probably when rather than if there will be a requirement for these courses to be validated by the GOC and successful candidates registered.

If one accepts the thrust of this argument, it is difficult to see how this fits with the deregulation of professional services that the Government also promotes. To argue that support staff should be regulated but allow the public access to the unqualified for the same services would defy logic.