SPOKE: Sector Partnership for Optical Knowledge and Education

There are universal and considerable concerns across the sector that increasing cost pressures on education providers, coupled to a prolonged period of static funding, will result in programmes either being under-resourced or closed due to the requirement for excessive cross subsidy. The changes invoked by the GOC education and training requirements (ETR) have required review and revalidation within institutions and an ongoing process of renegotiation of resourcing for heads of subject, or department, as the new courses roll out. Staffing forms by far the largest cost base and is also seen by providers as the only direct cost that can be readily flexed. As a consequence, staffing typically forms the nub of internal institutional funding conversations. At the time of writing, in early 2026, almost all UK FHEIs have a post freeze and/or a redundancy consultation underway. In the same year, the first delivery of the fourth year of many new ETR optometry programmes is due to commence, and whilst lower direct contact hours are required for students who are predominantly undertaking workplace learning, the staff time required for remote oversight and support should not be underestimated.  

It is therefore imperative that this benchmarking exercise provides clarity of expectations around what is required to assure patient safety and the learning experience, without placing excessive expectations on provider resourcing.

A risk-based framework benchmarking staff resource relating to the teaching of clinical skills and other relevant activities is provided in the table below. 

It is expected that providers will determine what is necessary, and measure and explain how such ratios are resourced, with reference to their methods of teaching delivery as documented in module and course paperwork. This must be explained in the light of workload models used in their institution for their registrant staff, including reference to their expected contribution to teaching. This may include the contributions from suitably qualified fractional and part-time hourly-paid clinical teaching and technical registrant staff (as appropriate) but should not include staff whose workload model does not include a contribution to teaching.

*Ratio may well be 2-3 times higher for low and medium risk tasks, where students are practicing on each other and taking turns to act as surrogate patients – especially where “patient” feedback is an important part of learning. 

It should also be clear how the remaining learner hours are supported through deployment of both registrant and non-registrant staff, such that a judgement can be made, given cohort size, as to whether there is sufficient registrant input into didactic clinical teaching (lectures), and sufficient capacity and expertise for other teaching activities (non-clinical teaching, research projects, personal tutoring etc), assessment design, marking and documentation, and leadership and management of the team, including staff development.  For example, a lecture to the whole cohort will only require one member of staff irrespective of class size, but personal tutoring will attract staff hours that match the expected 1:1 and small group contact time.

It is expected that the adequacy of the staff base, for patient safety and learning experience, is best judged in the light of testing the connections between the validated module documentation, the timetabled delivery schedule, and the staff contributions. This would allow EVPs to make judgements based on published teaching hours and workload allocations.