29 July 2022
Leicester-based optometrist Honey Rose has been erased from the General Optical Council register after a substantive hearing before the fitness to practise committee of the General Optical Council.
The case was remitted from the High Court in November 2021. Rose is now unable to practise as an optometrist in the UK.
The committee found that Rose’s fitness to practise was impaired by reason of misconduct.
The erasure order was deemed necessary for the protection of the public and in the wider public interest. The decision was made on Tuesday (26 July.)
The events leading to Rose’s eventual erasure took place on 15 February 2012, when the registrant was working as a locum optometrist in the Upper Brook Street (Ipswich) branch of Boots Opticians.
Rose was represented throughout her case by the AOP.
In partnership with the AOP, OT has published guidance on how optometrists can adapt their daily practice in light of professional conduct proceedings.
Comments (3)
You must be logged in to join the discussion. Log in
Anonymous28 June 2023
I couldn't agree more. Why are the managers of many optical businesses not held accountable for 'squeezing' in walk ins etc. and not having enough staff etc. to ensure things are done properly? We have all been in the situation whereby an Optometrist is running behind and inevitably, one can cut corners to try to cope with the workload. In Honey Rose's case, she simply made a mistake (as many others do in health care professions such as medicine and dentistry) and yet the whole UK public 'went for her'. I know of doctors who have had serious lapses of judgements and their careers went from strength to strength. I urge everyone reading this to spread the word that this Optometrist is a human being (although I am not condoning her actions and I completely understand the terror of Vincent Barker's parents) and as such, she may make mistakes as we all do. I feel she should have been allowed to return to the profession as she will inevitably do everything in her power to ensure she is NEVER negligent again. My heart does go out to her and her family for this last decade of trauma. I hope and pray that she and her family manage to move past this horrific episode in their lives.
Report Like 57
Paul6631 August 2022
The committee found that Rose’s fitness to practise was impaired by reason of misconduct.
Well yes it did, and Honey Rose was an individual registrant of the GOC, and so Honey Rose is no longer in practice.
That very same damnation appears in more recent GOC-generated case law, does it not? Ah, but it was used to condemn a body corporate registrant of the GOC. And so there is very little publicity. Why is that? It is in the public domain, but difficult to get at / understand.
And so if we use Wikipedia and enter 'Boots Opticians', third paragraph down ('misconduct' -and no, it is not the blue-light case) and go to reference 10, we will start to learn about the importance of 'the Limbs of Grant' with respect to patient safety. As of November 2021, NHS England is arguing that this publication is adequate for public informed choice, in that NHS England patients are aware that they need to read determination statements and understand them. I doubt if many members of the public know what the Limbs of Grant are (I am confident optometrists have not a clue either).
Report Like 204
Anonymous03 August 2022
What happens to the college assessor who passed Rose as 'competent'? Does the College need to update its examination methods for assessing and then passing student/ abroad qualified optometrists so that there is no risk of this happening again?
Report Like 231