The role of remediation in fitness to practise proceedings

Barrister, Eleanor Curzon, outlined the role of remediation in General Optical Council (GOC) fitness to practise proceedings during her 100% Optical presentation (2 March, Excel London).

Curzon highlighted at the beginning of her presentation that GOC cases are not designed to punish individuals.

“The whole purpose of these proceedings is really about public protection – this mirrors every other healthcare regulator,” she said.

She added that GOC proceedings aim to promote and maintain public confidence in the profession as well upholding proper standards of practice and conduct within the profession.

“Every single thing that happens in the duration of a fitness to practise proceeding is looked at through that lens of public protection,” Curzon emphasised.

The barrister explained that remediation involves a practitioner showing that they have learned from what went wrong and have taken steps to reduce the risk of repetition. She added that demonstrating insight plays a key role in remediation.

Curzon emphasised that this should go “well beyond” simply accepting wrongdoing – which she compared to applying a bandage without cleaning the wound.

“It may look better, but the underlying issue remains the same, and committees will see through that,” she said.

Curzon shared that remediation may take the form of continuing professional development (CPD), reflective statements, mentoring or supervision, practical training, or health and wellbeing remediation.

Behaviour and professionalism courses can also contribute to remediation, as well as peer or employer feedback.

Curzon noted that remediation can be taken into account when a fitness to practise committee is deciding whether an optometrist or dispensing optician is currently impaired.

She emphasised that assessing whether an individual’s fitness to practise is impaired is a forward-looking exercise.

“As a committee, they are looking at your fitness to practise today, as of now, and in the future,” Curzon shared.

“Unless you have remediation, your barrister or yourself, if you're self-representing, has little chance and little hope of persuading a committee that you are currently fit to practise,” she said.

Curzon noted that remediation is also key in the sanction stage of fitness to practise proceedings.

“If you’ve engaged in remediation, the risk of receiving the most serious sanction is reduced,” she said.

“Ultimately, remediation really influences whether impairment is found, the severity of the sanction, and the duration of the sanction,” Curzon highlighted.

Reflecting on the type of remediation that is performed, Curzon emphasised the importance of performing targeted rather than generic CPD.

“If the concern is about how you communicate with your patients, about being rude to them or aggressive, then the committee do not want to see that you have done CPD on General Data Protection Regulation, for example,” she said.

Curzon also highlighted the weight that is given to reflective statements in demonstrating remediation within fitness to practise proceedings.

“That reflective statement is a narrative of what's happened, what you’ve done, what you’ve learned, and how you have developed insight. Hopefully we’re able to demonstrate to a committee that you’ve developed your professional practice and your mindset in accordance with their expectations,” she explained.

Curzon reflected that as well as forming a key part of the fitness to practise process, remediation can help to rebuild a practitioner’s confidence.

“If it’s a clinical issue that’s at the heart of the regulatory concern, if you undertake all these courses and this training, it can really build your own confidence as a practitioner,” she said.