Foster Review of professional regulation

15 August 2005

The way optics is regulated could be set to change in the wake of the Shipman Inquiry. The government has set up two parallel reviews: one for the medical profession; and one for all other groups—including optics.

FODO is a member of the reference group for the review of all other groups – chaired by Andrew Foster, Department of Health Head of NHS Workforce, which met in a plenary workshop on 14 July.

The FODO response to the Foster Review’s “Call for Ideas” is available here.

In brief, FODO is arguing for

• the continuation of the General Optical Council as the single health regulator for optics
• but modernised to reflect current commercial realities eg experienced people from the business sector on the Council itself
• with processes streamlined in line with the reforms for all professions eg CRB checks, fitness to practise
• regulation being proportionate to risk – optometrists and dispensing opticians do not carry out invasive or life-threatening procedures
• separation of fitness to practise from registration and revalidation – with entirely lay panels
• responsibility for CET/CPD lying with individuals and employers as a condition of registration
• no increase in the overall costs of regulation.

We also make the point that NHS care represents marginally over 15% of optical business.  To minimise the regulatory burden it is important therefore that regulation covers both NHS and private care and – given the low level of clinical risk in optics – is proportionate recognising that disproportionate regulatory cost ultimately impacts on the funds otherwise available for patient care.

We also recognise the synergies between optics and other professions and sectors, particularly pharmacy and dentistry where highly-qualified, autonomous professionals  similarly practise across a wide clinical area.  Nevertheless we would support the view strongly articulated at the 14 July workshop that the focus of the current review should be on standards, processes and procedures, and the appropriate level of regulation for the sectors concerned, rather than the number of regulators.  We believe  this would be an unnecessary distraction at this stage. 

We would also argue that the Department of Health should follow the example being set by the Better Regulation Task Force and assess the current costs of health regulation.  The Department could then propose what the Government believes is an appropriate level of overhead cost for health care regulation, ensure this is distributed proportionately according to clinical risk, and keep this under regular review.