University of Hertfordshire Research Archive

        JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

        Browse

        All of UHRABy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitles

        Arkivum Files

        My Downloads
        View Item 
        • UHRA Home
        • University of Hertfordshire
        • Research publications
        • View Item
        • UHRA Home
        • University of Hertfordshire
        • Research publications
        • View Item

        One eye of the future, one eye on the past: the UK General Optical Council’s approach to fitness to practise

        View/Open
        2017_IJHCQA_30_8_693_702.pdf (PDF, 727Kb)
        Author
        Gallagher, Cathal T
        Dhokia, Chhayal
        Attention
        2299/22152
        Abstract
        Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to assess if the GOC considers relevant factors at all stages of its deliberations into misconduct, as required by the determinations in the cases of Cohen, Zygmunt, and Azzam, and to assess whether those circumstances described in the Hearings Guidance and Indicative Sanctions as warranting removal of an optician from the relevant registers lead to that outcome. Design/methodology/approach: The consideration of specific factors in determining impairment of fitness to practise was compared with their subsequent consideration when determining the severity of sanction. Additionally, cases that highlighted aggravating circumstances deemed as serious enough to warrant removal were monitored. Pearson's χ(2) test was used to detect any variation from the expected distribution of data. Findings: In total, 42 cases met the inclusion criteria. Each of the four factors considered was more likely to be heard when determining sanction having first been factored in to the consideration of impairment. Where risk of harm was identified as an aspect of an optician's misconduct, the sanctions of suspension or removal were no more likely to be imposed. Where dishonesty was involved, they were more likely to result in suspension or removal. Originality/value: The GOC do, in general, factor the rulings of High Court appeal cases into their deliberations on the impairment of fitness to practice and, where dishonesty is involved, consider their own guidance in determining which sanction to apply. The authors were unable to show that placing the safety of patients at risk was more likely to result in removal from the register.
        Publication date
        2017-10-09
        Published in
        International journal of health care quality assurance
        Published version
        https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHCQA-09-2016-0123
        Other links
        http://hdl.handle.net/2299/22152
        Metadata
        Show full item record
        Keep in touch

        © 2019 University of Hertfordshire

        I want to...

        • Apply for a course
        • Download a Prospectus
        • Find a job at the University
        • Make a complaint
        • Contact the Press Office

        Go to...

        • Accommodation booking
        • Your student record
        • Bayfordbury
        • KASPAR
        • UH Arts

        The small print

        • Terms of use
        • Privacy and cookies
        • Criminal Finances Act 2017
        • Modern Slavery Act 2015
        • Sitemap

        Find/Contact us

        • T: +44 (0)1707 284000
        • E: ask@herts.ac.uk
        • Where to find us
        • Parking
        • hr
        • qaa
        • stonewall
        • AMBA
        • ECU Race Charter
        • disability confident
        • AthenaSwan