The General Optical Council doesn’t like to make life easy for itself. In recent years, and in particular, during the pandemic, some quarters of the profession accused the regulator of lacking transparency when it came to Covid measures and allowing corporates to have an influence on decisions that impacted registrant and public safety.
The directors of Specsavers joint venture partner, Northants VisionPlus, had been scheduled to appear before a fitness to practise committee on February 20. The directors of the business were alleged to have seen walk-in patients in the latter stages of lockdown, which the GOC said amounted to misconduct or deficient professional performance. But the case will no longer be heard.
Instead, it was referred to case examiners for reconsideration, and they subsequently decided the likelihood of finding impaired practise was ‘no longer realistic’. I’m probably not alone in thinking that the case examiners would surely have decided the first time that the evidence threshold for a decision on impairment could be met. So, what changed?
I asked the GOC and was pointed to rule 16 of its fitness to practise rules. Rule 16 and its subsections can be found on opticianonline.net, but the long and the short of it is that they’re rather ambiguous without context – which naturally couldn’t be given because of the GOC’s disclosure policy.
During the exchange with the GOC, it transpired that a similar fitness to practise case, involving a leaked video of a Specsavers employee filmed encouraging fellow practices to see non-urgent patients, was heard, and concluded in May 2021 with no result published following a request in accordance with the disclosure policy was granted by the GOC.
The result is that many within the sector will be left scratching their heads, wondering if different types of registrants are held to the same standards. For many, the ‘once in a generation’ opportunity for legislative reform will be warmly greeted.