A Tenby optometrist has been warned by his professional body, the General Optical Council, following disciplinary proceedings, that he needs to improve. Although cleared of an allegation that his fitness to practice was impaired, John Edward Stevenson was told by disciplinary panel chair, Mercy Jeyasingham, that the panel expected him to achieve "improvements" in his work in the future. The hearing had been told that a number of "inadequacies" in his examination of a female on September 18, 2006, relating to the fitting of contact lenses, were found during an assessment of his work. He was cleared of allegations of failing to perform an examination of the patient's "anterior segment" and of not providing suitable contact lenses, but guilty of not performing a full 'slit lamp' examination. The disciplinary panel also found allegations proved that he had not performed another test of keratometry and also had failed to prepare complete and adequate records. Chris Alder, for the council, told the panel: "On September 18, 2006, Mr. Stevenson was subject to a performance assessment by Dr. Adrian Jones and another optometrist. "Mr. Stevenson was notified on July 31, 2006, that the performance assessment would take place on September 18 regarding his management of contact lens patients. "The patient involved had attended a week before when there was a lack of sufficient detail and a lack of clinical information. There was no mention of family or personal history, no health occupational needs or previous history." He said Mr. Stevenson had not asked the patient to look "up or down or side to side" in the slit lamp examination which is among the guidelines as are examinations of the anterior segment and keratometry. Mr. Stevenson, who had claimed it was a "tolerance trial" rather than a performance assessment, said he believed at the time the slit lamp examination was sufficient and it was not inadequate not to perform the keratometry test. He said he had attended a course on record keeping, but believed at the time that his records were "adequate" for his purposes. However, Jamas Hodivala, representing Mr. Stevenson, told the hearing: "He now accepts records have to be kept in a different manner." He said that what had happened was a "single instance, a one-off, and not broad failings across the board." Issuing the warning, Ms Jeyasingham said: "Although the committee found Mr. Stevenson's fitness to practice is not impaired, it concluded there were deficiencies exhibited on this particular day and that there were other areas of concern. "The committee therefore gives Mr. Stevenson a warning it expects him to achieve in future the improvements he accepted in his evidence that he was implementing. In particular, slit lamp examinations, contact lens practice and record keeping." Earlier she had said: "The committee was not satisfied the deficiencies in Mr. Stevenson's professional performance were of an exceptional nature. "Neither did the deficiencies permit the committee safely to draw an inference they represented a fair sample of the practice over a wider period."
