Boots Opticians is facing an inquiry by the industry regulator over allegations concerning a whistleblower at its branch in Cornwall. The regulator is to hold a hearing into the conduct of the branch in Truro.
The General Optical Council (GOC) five-day hearing is due to take place from December 17 to 21 in London and is listed as a "substantive" hearing, which can result in fines or restrictions imposed on how people and businesses are allowed to practice in the industry if there is a finding of liability.
The allegations being investigated relate to the way the subject of the hearing, listed as Boots Opticians Professional Services Ltd, dealt with an employee, only named as Mr A, who raised concerns which were in the "public interest", listed as "protected public disclosures" and commonly referred to as whistleblowing.
The GOC allegations conclude that the alleged actions have impaired Boots Opticians' fitness to practise. Boots has said in a statement that it will deny that its fitness to practise has been impaired.
The outcomes of a substantive hearing, determined by a panel of five fitness to practice committee members, with a legal adviser present, can include significant financial penanlties and affect the subject's listing on the register of 25,000 optometrists, dispensing opticians, student optometrists, student dispensing opticians and optical businesses.
According to the GOC's documents relating to the hearing, the allegations claim that the business failed to manage the whistleblowing disclosures about another employee, told that employee that they were made by Mr A, kept the employee - or intended to keep them - employed as an optometrist and supervisor of Mr A and failed to address the concerns he raised about the colleague's performance.
The allegations listed state that between around October 2014 and February 2016 "you failed to appropriately manage protected disclosures made by Mr A about clinical concerns within your business in that:
a. You did not identify that the disclosures made were of protected disclosures pursuant to the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1988
b. You disclosed to the subject of the protected disclosures that they had been made by Mr A
c. You retained, or indicated that you intended to retain, the subject of the protected disclosures as the Clinical Governance Optometrist with responsibility for the clinical supervision of Mr A
d. You failed to adequately address the concerns raised by Mr A relating to the clinical performance of the subject of the protected disclosures. UPDATE: this allegation was dropped before the hearing started
"And by virtue of the facts set out above, your fitness to carry on business is impaired by reason of misconduct."
Aside from fines, the sanctions available to the committee include, generally in the cases of individual practitioners, removal or suspension from the register or restrictions on their registration. The subject can also be forced to pay the costs associated with the hearing.
These can be appealed through the courts.
A Boots Opticians spokesman said: "Boots Opticians takes its professional and ethical duties around whistleblowing very seriously, and we encourage an honest, open learning culture. When all the facts of this case are considered at the hearing later this month, Boots Opticians will be explaining to the GOC that it has taken appropriate actions to address the allegations and it will be denying they impair its fitness to practise."
Last year the GOC fined Boots £40,000 for a “misleading” advertisement about Boots Protect Plus Blue (BPPB) lenses. The regulator found there was potential for patients to be misled by the multiple overstating claims about blue light and the benefits of its BPPB lenses in an advertisement that was published in The Times in January 2015.
In 2009 Boots Opticians was fined £30,000 by the GOC over a lack of supervision given to a trainee dispensing optician. Allegations were proven that the company did not take reasonable and proportionate steps to prevent trainee Trevor Burgess dispensing to a 14-year-old boy without proper supervision on two occasions.
