GOC testing of sight proposals raise “fundamental concerns,” AOP says

The AOP is calling on the General Optical Council (GOC) to ensure that any future changes to its testing of sight statement and revisions to supervision and delegation standards support safe practice.

This follows the AOP’s submission to the GOC’s consultation on the proposed updates to its Standards of Practice for Optometrists and Dispensing Opticians and Standards for Optical Students, in which the GOC suggests allowing sight tests to be split between different people, times and locations, with trained non-registrants able to perform certain tasks under a registered professional’s oversight.

In its response, which can be read in full on the AOP website, the association highlights that the proposals could create additional risks to patient care, increase commercial pressures on practitioners, and increase registrants’ responsibilities without giving them the necessary authority or safeguards.

The AOP’s response argues against allowing sight tests to be split between different people, times and locations, stating that the independent legal advice it sought has concluded that routine separation is not permitted within the act, but it does permit limited and clinically justified separation.

In creating its response, the AOP engaged with practitioners through a survey seeking their views on the consultation. The survey responses, the AOP said, highlighted widespread concern that the proposals could weaken patient safeguards and increase pressures on registrants.

The survey, taken by more than 660 practitioners, reported support for trained practitioners carrying out tests such as IOP, visual fields, optical coherence tomography and fundus photography, as long as a supervising optometrist is on the premises and able to intervene.

However, respondents to the survey expressed concern that increased delegation and remote working would lead to commercial models that increase throughput, rather than improve patient care.

Proposals on remote supervision, online testing and pre-screening days or weeks before an examination garnered strong views also, the AOP said.

The AOP’s response stated that while it “backs” the option that the supervising optometrist must be on the premises and in a position to intervene, it opposes remote supervision, stating, “we do not believe it can be worded to keep patients safe.”

Through its response to the consultation, the AOP asks for supervision to be “meaningful,” stating that “an on-site optometrist with a fully booked clinic cannot genuinely intervene, so clinic scheduling must allow for it.”

It also asks for a clear definition of delegation, including who is responsible for training, the working environment and auditing quality.

The AOP emphasises that the proposed changes could lead to liability without control, and highlighted that its survey found that 4% of employed and 10% of locum respondents feel the optometrist has no control over which tests are done.

The AOP thanked members and the wider profession who completed the survey, which sought to understand the profession’s experiences and views, confirming that the answers and comments have supported the association in developing its response to the consultation.

Finding that most respondents are opposed to the proposals, it has offered to share the full survey report with the GOC.

AOP chief executive, Adam Sampson, said: “The response has been clear that the proposals raise fundamental concerns about safety and accountability. The proposals risk adding new layers of responsibility without addressing the underlying issues practitioners face.

“We have raised measured concerns about the risks within the proposals, and the GOC has the opportunity to ensure that future updates support safe practice and provide the guardrails needed to uphold it.”

The AOP said it will continue to engage with the GOC as it considers its next steps.

Read more

GOC consultation on the proposed update to the testing of sight statement

An overview of our response to the GOC’s consultation following research with members and the wider profession