I remember letting go of a few guffaws when first reading some of the questions in the General Optical Council’s call for evidence on amendments to the Opticians Act and consultation on its policies, especially on remote care and technology.
‘Are there any gaps within the Act or GOC policy relating to the regulation of technology or remote care that present a risk to patients?’ asked the regulator in question 48 and similar in question 50. It could have saved everyone a couple of questions by simply saying: ‘Tell us about the gaps in the Act and GOC policy and give us your suggestions.’
Responses understandably focused on how the GOC could reduce the risk to patients through communication with online sellers and providers that break UK laws and by educating professionals and patients - see this week's In Focus: Are we remote ready? Essentially, things that the GOC can and should be doing now.
If the GOC wants to be fit for the future, it needs more firepower. Dealing with illegal practice isn’t a core function of the GOC, but it needs to be bumped up the order quickly because technology doesn’t even have to break into a jog to outpace legislation changes and GOC policy and there will be plenty willing to exploit it. Read any fitness to practise determination and you’ll see ‘protection of the public’ mentioned when considering sanctions against practitioners, but the public isn’t mentioned in the regulators core functions. Online sales and, one day, online refraction will gradually erode the amount of contact with health professionals and that presents a risk to the public.
In some ways, the point is moot, as protecting the public is going to be difficult when there’s no bite to match the bark. The GOC needs to start lobbying the privy council, members of the House of Lords, whoever it must to achieve more legislative power. If a private company is able to get a lord to mention amendment of the Opticians Act in order to allow the sale of variable focus glasses, it shouldn’t be beyond the GOC.