Sheffield Local Optometric Committee

Sheffield Loc meeting 12th November 2012

Sheffield Local Optical Committee

SLOC Minutes of the meeting

Held: Monday 12th November 2012

Present: James Allen (JA), Helen Bailey (HB), Gerry Cowley (GC), Mike Daybell (MD), Rob Hughes (RH – Chair), Tan Hussain (TH), Deb Mullens (DM), Habib Shah (HS), Sue Wilford (SW), Helen Wilkinson (HW),

Attendees: Louise Lambert (LL) (Minutes)

Apologies: Shirley Blundell (SB), Alastair Mew (AM) Richard Oliver (RO), Azad Nawaz (AN),

Minutes of the last meeting

After some minor amendments the minutes of the last meeting were accepted as a correct record. Proposed by DM and seconded by HS

Matters Arising

1. PEARS continuing training

RH had emailed LOCSU to ascertain how continued training was being implemented, they were unable to offer clarity. It is proposed that SLOC PEARs should ensure they continue to do refresher training using college of optometrists and WOPEC (Wales Optometry Postgraduate Education Centre) training material. Optometrists wanting to become new PEARS optometrists need to complete the Glaucoma training as well.

The PEARS subcommittee met prior to the main meeting, where it was decided the frequency of training should be 3 times a year, starting next year. This is in addition to any other distant learning that needs to be achieved. It was commented that no other profession needs to demonstrate on-going accreditation in practical core competency skills.

2. Peer review

The group opened the Peer review discussion, talking about the CET (Continuing Education and Training) accreditation. Two years ago it was proposed that optometrist maintain their registration with GOC (General Optical Council) by obtaining CET points, the idea was to reduce clinical isolation.

GOC propose 3 Peer review session should be run a year. The group deliberated over the logistics of a Peer review session. JA having looked into the sessions and was waiting for a response back from Trevor Warburton. It was questioned who would pay for a speaker, if one was involved. The session could start with a speaker and then break off into smaller groups holding 6 to 8 including the facilitator (who offered guidance). It was felt that some optometrists would welcome not having to bring specific patient records. The group considered the duration, topics for discussion, venue and if the facilitator needed to be endorsed. If all members were agreeable, it was suggested that committee members would act as facilitators, calculating attending no more than one or two a year. Concerns were raised if individuals left their training till the last minute.

There was also an in-depth discussion regarding the size of event, weighing up the pros and cons of both small frequent versus larger less frequent sessions. It was suggested to obtain a cross viewpoint during the Peer sessions as to limit places from companies, no more than 2 colleagues from any multiple during a session.

JA to email LOCSU to obtain guidance on how to conduct the Peer sessions
Action: JA to email LOCSU.

HB commented that the Peer review was a good way to aid and give back to the community optometrists. RH commented that it was a useful exercise which he would prefer to do in smaller groups, highlighting some of the benefits.

MD enquired if any guidance had been issued, JA confirmed there is no guidance. GOC initiated Peers but as of yet no other LOC has anything in place or even a model in existence or operating.

It was thought to utilise time and resource to hold a Peers review in smaller sessions prior to the main SLOC meeting. It was also considered to be difficult to identify numbers in advance, suggesting invitation only. The group again spoke at length regarding the size of the Peers review, concluding a combination approach which would appeal to different personalities. There are currently 22 PEARS optometrists which could be invited to join in a larger Peer review.

JA feedback that participates need to complete reflective statements on the Peer review. JA has as yet not received the guidance for the statements.
Action: JA to await Trevor’s response and cost up events
Action JA to discuss with Gill LOCSU Facilitator training

3. Cataract scoring

Unfortunately nobody had spoken further to Richard Sheard regarding the withdrawal of the CATS scoring system. RH sought the committees opinions and the consensus was that the scoring was required, aiding in a uniform ability. The bench mark of the score of 10 within the system was discussed. There was a strong need for guidance and it was reiterated that the PCT were also in favour of keeping the scoring system at its current level.
Action: RO to pick up with Richard Sheard

The group also discussed the level of referrals being received by secondary care, recognising the difficulty in identifying where additional optometry referrals are being generated from. Scoring was not unique within ophthalmology, it is being used across various disciplines with Secondary Health Care. Concluding that until explicitly told different, community optometrist would continue to use the current scoring system, been happy to refine the system with input from the hospital, but uniformity is required. RH asked if another would like to attend the meeting with Richard Sheard, to which MD was agreeable.

4. Enhanced services – the future.

RO distributed a document regarding the migration of commissioning to the CCG. The group commented that the document was a difficult to read however RH wanted to reassure the committee, that the Chair of the CCG (RO) likes the four enhanced services being provided and should, it was thought, create little or no change.

5. OHT (ocular hypertension) monitoring

There were no further developments or communication to report from Simon Longstaff (Ophthalmology, Sheffield Teaching Hospital). There was a discussion around Gonioscopy and the fee for monitoring was queried, it was thought it would possibly be an additional £40 on top of normal fees.

Doing OHT monitoring in the community would require Gonioscopy equipment and it was felt that the test would not alter the referral pathway for patients. This conversation evolved into a discussion around auditing equipment which was not thought viable at this time.

RO enquired, via email, whether it could be considered merging GRR (Glaucoma Referral Refinement) and OHT. Concerns were raised about joint monitoring and the group decided, supporting a better patient experience that it would better to keep the two schemes separate.

Guidelines, should OHT come into the community would have to be issued for each individual.

6. FDT screeners for PEARS.

The group where not in favour of FDT screeners for PEARS, because it is not an appropriate method for checking or monitoring field defects

7. 111

RH informed the group that NHS direct was being replaced by 111, an out of office service that will direct and advise patients. RH had been considering conditions; blurred vision and contact lens issues, should be directed to community opticians. If they don’t wear contact lenses patients should be directed into PEARS. The group spoke about eye causality and whether they do or do not deal with Contact related issues.
Action: DM to investigate.

8. Any other business

a) Committee Members
HB wanted an official entry into the minutes that after 3 years, GC was no longer Secretary; MD was no longer Treasurer or Chair. These positions where now held by – HB – Treasurer, RH – Chair and DM – Secretary.

The group spoke about the Christmas Meal, and it was decided that it would be held on Tuesday 15th January 2013. The venue was proposed to be Beauchief Hotel however it was suggested to look at alternative venues. The group agreed to invite Phil Banton and the two Davids.
Action: MD to look into alterative venues.

b) Future meetings
Action: RH to send out proposed dates for future meetings

c) Med Ret Clinic
It was discussed about macula degeneration being sent through to PEARS or directly to the med ret clinic. If the referring optometrist suspecting wet AMD, these should not be sent to PEARS, but referred via fax directly to the hospital. If the optometrist suspects dry, this can go through PEARS. There was some concern with the med ret clinic getting bogged down with non urgent dry AMD cases, but DM reported this shouldn’t be a problem.
If there is doubt on a referral, the triaging optometrist should therefore send the referral directly to med ret.
Action: DM to send GC the correct fax number

9. Date of next meeting;

Monday 17th December 2012

Meeting ended 9.05

« Back to the archives

Next Meeting:

Holiday Inn hotel,
Blonk St
Sheffield
S1 2AB

at 7.30 pm Tues 1st Aug

Mailing List

Join our mailing list