23 June 2022
Below OT presents a summary of General Optical Council fitness to practise decisions published over the last six months.
For GOC matters, patient complaints and NHS investigations, AOP members can contact: [email protected]
The AOP Peer Support Line is a confidential, free-phone helpline (0800 870 8401) for members and non-members at any stage of their optical career to call and discuss their problems with a trained, empathetic peer who recognises the pressures of optical practice.
January 2024
Ilford-based optometrist, Simon Rose (GOC registration 01-13102), has been suspended from the register for six months for failing to assess and accurately record clinical information.
A GOC fitness to practise committee also found that Rose retrospectively amended clinical notes.
The committee determined that Rose’s clinical failures included not using images taken during a 2018 sight test to inform his assessment.
There was also a failure to conduct basic tests and gather fundamental information, such as family history.
The committee highlighted that a further aggravating factor in the case was that the clinical shortcomings led to a delay in diagnosing glaucoma.
There was also dishonesty involved, with Rose amending clinical notes to cover up the fact that he had not maintained adequate records.
In mitigation, the committee determined that Rose had demonstrated “excellent” remediation, meaning that the risk of repetition of the conduct was low.
He had positive testimonials demonstrating that the dishonesty was out of character. Rose had no other findings of misconduct or impairment during his long professional career.
The decision stated: “The committee did not consider that in all the circumstances, the misconduct was fundamentally incompatible with being a registered professional.”
Rose was issued with a six-month suspension order.
December 2023
An optometrist has been erased from the GOC register following clinical and record keeping failures.
Banchory-based optometrist, Robert Fyfe (GOC registration 01-31612), failed to send a vision report to a hospital, misdiagnosed patients and kept inadequate records.
The fitness to practise committee also found that he had failed to conduct adequate sight tests and urgently refer a patient to the hospital.
Turning to aggravating factors in the case, the committee attributed weight to the breadth of the clinical deficiencies – relating to two patients over a period of around 18 months.
One patient had their cataract treatment delayed and in the other case, Fyfe did not detect an obvious sign that could potentially indicate a serious condition.
In mitigation, the committee considered Fyfe’s long career, of more than three decades, with no fitness to practise history.
The committee also took into account that Fyfe had made some admissions in his early correspondence with case examiners.
Taking all the circumstances into account, including a lack of insight and disengagement from the proceedings, the committee considered that Fyfe’s conduct was fundamentally incompatible with remaining on the register.
A suspended Bodedern-based dispensing optician has been erased from the GOC register after a fitness to practise committee found he showed a “persistent lack of insight.”
The committee determined that Gary Marshall (GOC registration D-6494) had not acknowledged the seriousness of his actions or their consequences.
Marshall was initially suspended in November 2022 after he inappropriately modified the spectacle prescriptions of patients and failed to obtain the necessary authorisation of an optometrist when altering a prescription.
In reviewing Marshall’s suspension, the fitness to practise committee highlighted that Marshall had not engaged with the GOC since 2021.
He had not demonstrated any evidence of insight into his conduct or remediation.
“The committee noted that this was a case involving dishonesty and considered that through an ongoing lack of engagement the registrant had demonstrated a persistent lack of insight,” the committee highlighted.
The committee determined that erasure from the register was the appropriate and proportionate sanction.
November
An optometrist who amended a patient’s record retrospectively has been suspended for three months.
A fitness to practise committee decision described how Littlehampton-based practitioner, Rishi Patel (GOC registration 01-20021), accessed the record of a patient in January 2021 after the initial appointment in May 2019.
He added several reported patient symptoms and clinical observations, including that the patient’s optical coherence tomography scan was normal.
Patel did not add the date or his initials to the parts of the patient record that were amended.
The committee determined that retrospectively amending the patient record was dishonest and misleading.
In mitigation, the decision noted that there was no harm caused to the patient, the conduct was an isolated incident of dishonesty and Patel has demonstrated insight, remorse, reflection and targeted remediation.
The committee also noted that Patel had implemented coping strategies to address stress in the workplace.
In terms of aggravating factors, the committee highlighted that Patel had included information in the amendments that he could not recollect and had not been candid with his business partner about the amendments.
The GOC determined that an appropriate sanction was a three-month suspension order.
A Harpenden-based optometrist has been erased from the GOC register after he continued to practise while subject to an interim suspension order.
Donald Lydon (GOC registration 01-23661) was also found by a fitness to practise committee to have submitted General Ophthalmic Services (GOS) claims for matters other than sight tests, and altered dates on GOS forms for sight tests performed during his interim suspension order.
Turning to aggravating factors in the case, the committee highlighted a lack of insight by Lydon into his conduct.
“The committee has not received evidence of any remorse, apology or clear acceptance of wrongdoing from the registrant. There is no evidence to suggest the registrant has taken steps to remediate his conduct,” the committee noted.
Lydon had a previous finding of misconduct from 2017, when he faced allegations of clinical failures, poor record keeping and failing to cooperate with a GOC investigation.
The committee also found that Lydon’s conduct comprised dishonesty at the “high end of the scale.”
“The persistent and prolonged nature of the dishonesty in claiming for GOS sight tests for multiple patients resulted in significant financial gain for the registrant,” the decision stated.
In mitigation, Lydon had agreed to pay back funds owed to the NHS on a monthly basis.
The committee determined that Lydon’s behaviour was “fundamentally incompatible” with being a registered professional.
“The committee concluded that erasure of the registrant’s name from the register is the only appropriate and proportionate sanction,” the committee stated.
A Bradford-based dispensing optician has been suspended for six months after he dishonestly obtained free contact lenses.
Joshua Smith (GOC registration D-17395) created a contact lens order without a prescription for an individual who was not a patient at the practice where he worked. He did not collect payment for the contact lenses.
A GOC fitness to practise committee determined that Smith’s actions were dishonest as he intended to obtain free contact lenses.
In terms of aggravating factors, the committee highlighted that Smith’s misconduct was carried out for financial gain at a loss to the NHS, that there was an abuse of the employer’s trust and that Smith did not immediately admit to his conduct.
In mitigation, Smith had no previous fitness to practise history, he had cooperated with the GOC, and had received positive references.
Smith was shown to have a good level of insight, reflection, remorse and had apologised.
The committee determined that a six-month suspension order was an appropriate and proportion sanction.
The GOC learning bulletin, FtP Focus, also provides details on the types of concerns the optical regulator receives and how it assesses them during an investigation. If you have suggestions for future topics to cover, contact the GOC by email.
OT only includes cases that the GOC has deemed to be of public interest within this synopsis. In line with policy, case summaries will be removed from the OT website after six months.