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.
June
A student dispensing optician who attempted to appear fully qualified by giving false GOC numbers to employers has been erased from the register.
A fitness to practise committee heard that Naseem Suleman (GOC registration SD-7278) carried out activities that are reserved for fully qualified dispensing opticians.
As well as providing a false registration number, Suleman told a colleague that she was a fully qualified registrant. The committee determined that this conduct was dishonest.
Aggravating factors considered by the committee included that the misconduct was repeated and covered up. There was a potential for harm to patients and there was no evidence provided of remorse, reflection or remediation.
In mitigation, the committee shared that Suleman did not have prior fitness to practise history and there was no evidence of repetition of the conduct after the case came to the GOC.
The committee determined that Suleman’s conduct was “fundamentally incompatible” with continued registration.
May
An optometrist who falsely claimed that he had adequate insurance when renewing his GOC registration has been suspended from the register for nine months.
Birmingham-based practitioner, Mohammed Zada (GOC registration 01-28961) was found by a fitness to practise committee to have falsely claimed that he had adequate professional indemnity insurance when he did not.
The committee determined that when Zada entered an AOP membership number for a previous year into the online GOC retention form, he knew that he did not have cover for the specified period.
The committee found that Zada was aware that he was not insured to carry out his duties as an optometrist, and his actions were therefore dishonest.
Aggravating factors considered by the committee included that Zada had a fitness to practise history and he deliberately deceived both the regulator and his employers.
He worked 87 locum days over the period he was not insured – meaning that “hundreds of patients” would have been examined without adequate cover in place.
Mitigating factors considered by the committee include that Zada made full admissions to the allegations at an early stage,demonstrated sincere remorse, and apologised for his actions.
The committee also found that Zada had demonstrated substantial insight into his misconduct, and repetition was “highly unlikely.”
It was determined that a nine-month suspension order was necessary to meet the wider public interest and sufficiently mark the seriousness of the misconduct.
An optometrist based in Huddersfield has been erased from the GOC register after he failed to provide an adequate standard of care to patients and inappropriately amended patient records.
A fitness to practise committee found that Yaqut Khan (GOC registration 01-26586) had failed to make an urgent referral for a patient experiencing papilloedema, and incorrectly referred a patient for wet AMD when the patient had experienced a macular-off retinal detachment.
Khan also made dishonest amendments to patient records, claiming to have completed certain tests when he had not.
Aside from the patients discussed in detail within the decision, the committee found that Khan had failed to provide an adequate standard of care to a series of patients between August 2018 and August 2019.
Clinical errors included failing to conduct an internal examination of the eye, failing to carry out a cover test, and neglecting to explore or assess visual symptoms when a patient reported difficulties with near or distance vision.
Aggravating factors considered by the committee include the scale of the misconduct – with a large number of patients, who were placed at potential risk of harm, affected.
There were also three instances of dishonesty, including the amendment of records.
The mitigating circumstances considered by the committee included partial insight by Khan, with the completion of continuing professional development and other steps taken to remediate his conduct.
He had also completed five years of practice since the conduct, without evidence of repetition.
Several testimonials were provided, including one from a current manager and several from patients. There was no evidence of actual harm to a patient as a result of Khan’s conduct.
Giving weight to the need to protect the public and maintain public confidence in the profession, the committee determined that the appropriate sanction was erasure from the register.
April
Failures to adequately record clinical information have seen a Peterhead-based optometrist suspended for two months by the GOC.
A fitness to practise committee decision outlined how John Watson (GOC registration 01-15228) on several occasions failed to record the results of visual field tests.
There was also a “pattern of behaviour” where he would overwrite intraocular pressure (IOP) on patient records.
The aggravating circumstances detailed by the committee include that by overwriting IOPs, Watson put multiple patients at risk of harm. He also denied responsibility in the early stages of the employer investigation.
However, in mitigation, the committee highlighted that Watson had received positive references from a wide range of people who had worked with him for an extended period of time.
He also had positive patient feedback, clinical audits and supervisor feedback.
The decision stated that Watson had demonstrated significant insight into his conduct and reflection, as well as expressing remorse. The committee considered that there was a low risk of repetition of the misconduct.
Balancing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the committee determined that a suspension for a period of two months would be appropriate.
March
An optometrist who behaved inappropriately towards a patient and colleagues between 2020 and 2021 has been erased from the GOC register.
Wembley-based optometrist, Ibrar Ahmed (GOC registration 01-30095), was found by a fitness to practise committee to have inappropriately touched two colleagues. He also made sexual remarks towards colleagues.
The committee heard that Ahmed demonstrated sexually inappropriate behaviour towards a patient in September 2021.
The committee highlighted that no insight, remediation or remorse had been shown by Ahmed.
Although Ahmed was challenged about his behaviour towards a colleague in August 2020, he went on to act inappropriately towards another colleague and patient in 2021.
The committee highlighted that the misconduct involved both a breach of trust and an abuse of authority.
Erasure was determined to be the only means of protecting patients and colleagues, while also maintaining confidence in the profession.
“In such serious cases as this, protecting patients and colleagues and the wider public interest had to take precedence over the interests of the individual,” the decision stated.
Carnforth-based optometrist, Michael Moon (GOC registration 01-9510) has been suspended from the GOC register for six months. A GOC fitness to practise committee noted that Moon had failed to conduct appropriate eye examinations, amended patient records and behaved inappropriately towards a patient. This misconduct saw Moon receive a conditional registration order for three years, with a review after 12 months. As part of a review hearing, a fitness to practise committee determined that Moon had not yet taken steps to remediate the concerns arising in his case, and did not appear to appreciate the seriousness of his actions.
The committee noted that whilst some of this conduct could be classed as easily remediable, such as the clinical concerns, other aspects such as the dishonesty were more difficult to remediate.
Moon had reported completing continuing professional development, working under supervision and implementing changes to his practice.
However, the committee retained concerns that Moon had not appreciated the importance of diligent and full compliance with the conditions on his practice. A sanction of six months suspension was imposed.
“The committee considered that six months was the minimum required in order to protect the public and meet the public interest,” the decision stated.
An optometrist who made additions to a record after incorrectly advising a patient that he had cystoid macula oedema has been suspended from the GOC register for four months.
A fitness to practise committee decision found that Newcastle-based practitioner, Gareth Long (GOC registration 01-24213) created inaccurate records in order to conceal the fact that he had incorrectly advised a patient that he had cystoid macula oedema after failing to verify the patient’s identity.
Long added additional notes into the patient record, detailing how he had discussed a YAG capsulotomy with the patient (the procedure that the patient had presented to discuss).
In order to explain why ‘cystoid macular oedema’ was written on a note given to the patient, Long suggested in the patient record that there could have been a paperwork mix up with another patient sitting in the waiting room who had received this diagnosis.
The fitness to practise committee determined that these statements were inaccurate and the amendments had been made to conceal the fact that Long had incorrectly advised the patient that he had cystoid macular oedema.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the committee took into account that the behaviour of the registrant was dishonest.
In mitigation, Long had accepted that he should have behaved differently and shown remorse.
“His actions amounted to an isolated incident in an unblemished career, without previous or subsequent allegations,” the decision stated.
The appropriate sanction was determined to be a four-month suspension order.
February
Leicester-based optometrist, Herkiran Riyait (GOC registration 01-27741), has been suspended from the GOC register for 12 months.
The optical regulator determined that Riyait’s fitness to practise was impaired by reason of misconduct after she failed to engage with activity as directed by the GOC investigation committee.
A fitness to practise committee decision noted that a suspension was the appropriate and proportionate order to impose.
“The committee determined that the order should be for the maximum 12 months to mark the seriousness of the registrant’s conduct and to satisfy the wider public interest,” the decision stated.
January
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.
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.