It’s not something likely to change the shape of optics in the UK forever, but I have noticed an interesting requirement on some of the job adverts for optometrists.
‘Clean, faultless GOC record,’ was one of the stipulations listed on the job listing. Is it legal? Yes, it is. Is it ethical? That’s where things become murkier, and it raises some potentially interesting scenarios for the profession.
Thankfully, fitness to practise sanctions handed out by the GOC are still a relatively rare occurrence but going through an investigation process is something that practitioners are always mindful of.
There are several different outcomes of a fitness to practise process that could challenge the notion of a faultless record. How would a period of conditional registration be looked upon if it appeared on a candidate’s CV? Conditional registration is a sanction that forces self-reflection and seeks to remedy areas that have been found lacking. Some would even argue such a sanction makes for a better practitioner.
Suspension orders, which definitely represent a mark on a record, have clear lengths of time they’ll be in place for, but once the order has expired and details no longer appear on the registrant’s listing, what happens in the mind of a recruiter? Is a practitioner’s fitness to practise only impaired for the length of the suspension order, or is that involvement and punishment following an investigative process something that can be held against them forever?
The onus is on registrants to disclose fitness to practise sanctions to would-be employers, but many choose not to. I know this because many have tried, unsuccessfully I add, to have Optician news articles on their cases removed from existence in an effort to help their chances of employment.
High profile fitness to practise cases in recent years have undoubtedly put employers and recruiters on edge, but they must be mindful of the GOC’s processes and how it considers and hands out sanctions.