16 December 2004
There is a widely held view that the report is a considered, well-written and thorough document. It runs to well over 1,000 pages, and the following is a very brief summary of recommendations, which may impact on the future regulation of optometrists.
The
report focuses on areas where change is recommended and does not recommend interference with structures, which are working well.
Regulation
The
report is supportive of professional regulation and there is no suggestion that the General Medical Council (GMC) or any of the other health regulatory bodies should be replaced.
Dame Janet Smith says very clearly that in her view nothing could have prevented the Shipman murders happening – if someone is bent on murdering on that scale it is impossible to prevent this.
There is no reference in the
report to the General Optical Council (GOC) or to optical services although there is the odd line about the GMC, which may have relevance to other health regulatory bodies. However, in John Reid’s recent statement he was very clear and specific that the Department’s response to the report will apply to other health regulatory bodies as well as the GMC, so a marker has been put down. It is believed to be unlikely that the Department will respond until June.
The recommendation that lay representation on the GMC should be 51% might be relevant to the GOC.
There is also a recommendation that the GMC appoints rather than elects some of its professional members so that they are not looking over their shoulders at the members who elected them. Appointments would be made via a special appointments body overseeing a competitive process with various ‘colleges’ nominating people into the selection process. The appointments body would assess the skills and suitability of applicants to sit on the GMC.
It is also recommended that there is an entirely separate adjudication function with its own lawyers, with adjudication quite distinct from the GMC’s investigating powers.
It is recommended that there is a separate health tribunal for all health professionals.
It is suggested that fitness to practise panels should be chaired by or include a legally qualified person – there is much to recommend this, not least that some cases are under-prosecuted because lay people do not understand legal issues.
A new power to address deficient clinical practice is recommended.