A detailed guide for optometrists and dispensing opticians to General Optical Council fitness to practise: triage and the acceptance criteria, investigation, case examiners and the Investigation Committee, Fitness to Practise Committee hearings, the July 2026 sanctions guidance, and how insight, CPD and remediation fit together.
Choose one to see what it means and where to focus.
Select your situation to see where to start.
GOC fitness to practise is the General Optical Council's process for deciding whether a registrant's fitness to practise, to undertake training or to carry on an optical business is impaired, and what action, if any, is needed to protect the public.
The GOC describes a registrant as fit to practise when they have the skills, knowledge, health and character to do their work safely. Concerns can come from patients and the public, carers, employers, the police and other registrants, and the GOC can investigate a registrant's fitness to practise under section 13D of the Opticians Act 1989.
Not every concern is a fitness to practise matter. Consumer disputes about products, refunds or service are usually for the practice or the Optical Consumer Complaints Service, which the GOC funds. The GOC's triage and acceptance criteria exist to separate regulatory concerns from everything else.
The GOC regulates optometrists, dispensing opticians, optical students and optical businesses. Its framework uses three separate tests, and they must not be confused.
Fully qualified optometrists and dispensing opticians, including those on specialty registers such as independent prescribing and contact lens opticians.
Registered optical students. A suspended or erased student cannot continue their training.
Registered optical businesses, measured against the Standards for Optical Businesses. Separate from an individual's FTP.
This guide focuses on individual fitness to practise. The GOC's case examiner guidance, updated in December 2025, covers all three tests.
Creates the GOC and its registers. Section 13D is the basis for investigating fitness to practise.
Set out investigative powers and hearing procedure.
19 standards for optometrists and dispensing opticians; separate standards for students and businesses.
Decision-making at triage and after investigation.
Updated 20 July 2026. Used by the Fitness to Practise Committee.
Updated Standards of Practice for optometrists, dispensing opticians and optical students came into effect on 1 January 2025, with changes including care for patients in vulnerable circumstances and clearer requirements to identify your role and who provides care. Choose a standard to see the concerns it most often generates.
Pick a standard number.
Select a standard.
Mapping explains the standards involved. It does not establish misconduct or impairment.
A recurring pattern in published GOC outcomes is worth knowing: an inadequate eye examination combined with records later found to be misleading or dishonest, and false declarations about professional indemnity when renewing registration. In both, the dishonesty often weighs more heavily than the original clinical or administrative failing.
Inadequate eye examinations, failure to detect or refer pathology, poor clinical decision-making, working beyond competence (standards 5, 6, 7). Competence remediation
Records that do not support the examination performed or the advice given (standard 8). Altering records after a concern arises can create a probity issue. Documentation remediation
Not explaining options, risks or costs; not obtaining valid consent (standards 2, 3).
Inappropriate supervision of students or unregistered staff, or delegation that does not comply with the law (standard 9). The GOC is consulting in 2026 on changes relating to testing of sight and supervision and delegation, so this area needs monitoring.
For optometrists on the independent or additional supply specialty registers: prescribing outside competence, inadequate assessment or follow-up. Medication remediation
Inappropriate access, disclosure, digital records and social media (standard 14). The GOC publishes guidance on disclosing confidential information. Confidentiality remediation
False records, fraudulent claims, misleading statements, failure to declare (standard 16). The July 2026 sanctions guidance includes language reflecting a more balanced approach to dishonesty. Probity remediation
Standard 15. The GOC publishes guidance on maintaining appropriate sexual boundaries, and its 2026 sanctions guidance distinguishes sexual harassment from sexual motivation. Misconduct remediation
Standard 13, towards patients or colleagues.
Not being open when something goes wrong (standard 19) or not responding to complaints effectively (standard 18).
Must be declared. The question is what the matter means for fitness to practise, not a second punishment.
Only where health affects safe practice. Erasure cannot be imposed where impairment is due to adverse physical or mental health.
Declarations are part of professional accountability. Registrants must tell the GOC about matters such as criminal cautions and convictions, relevant health conditions and regulatory findings elsewhere, whether at registration, at renewal or when they arise.
The GOC's 2026 FtP Focus on declarations makes a reassuring point: making a declaration does not automatically mean there is a fitness to practise concern, and many declarations need no further action. Declarations go through triage like any other information.
The bigger risk is not declaring. Failing to declare something relevant can itself become a probity concern, often more serious than the matter that should have been declared.
The GOC acknowledges the concern and may make preliminary enquiries. Its acceptance criteria are a case-management tool for deciding whether a complaint amounts to an allegation of impaired fitness to practise that needs investigation under section 13D. If it opens a formal investigation, it notifies the registrant.
The GOC gathers evidence, which may include clinical records from practices or hospitals, witness statements and independent expert clinical opinion. All the evidence is sent to the registrant, who can make written representations. The complainant is then given a chance to comment on those representations.
The investigation form, all the evidence, the registrant's representations and any comments from the complainant. Your written representations are therefore one of the most important documents in the case.
An investigation is not a finding that fitness to practise is impaired.
If the Registrar, case examiners or Investigation Committee consider there may be a risk to the public or the registrant, or another public-interest reason, they can refer the registrant to the Fitness to Practise Committee to consider an interim order: immediate suspension or conditional registration. Interim order review hearings are a distinct part of the process.
Two case examiners, one registrant and one lay, decide what happens to each complaint. According to the GOC, they may:
Case examiners are not a hearing: they do not make final findings of fact or impairment.
Made up of registrant and lay members. It handles cases where case examiners disagree or have requested a health or performance assessment. When deciding whether to refer to the Fitness to Practise Committee, it has the same powers as the case examiners.
After a referral to the Fitness to Practise Committee, case examiners can consider an application, from the registrant or the Council, to terminate the referral, for example where circumstances have materially changed. The GOC publishes guidance on these applications.
Substantive hearings are held in public under rule 25(1) of the FTP Rules, and may take place remotely, on the papers or at the GOC's office depending on the circumstances. Hearings typically move through case management, evidence, findings of fact, impairment and, where relevant, sanction.
Are the facts alleged proved?
Do they show fitness to practise is currently impaired? Misconduct can be found without current impairment.
What, if anything, is needed to protect the public, maintain confidence and uphold standards?
Updated 20 July 2026: Hearings and Indicative Sanctions Guidance. Following consultation, the GOC's new guidance applies to all hearings from 20 July 2026 (part-heard hearings continue under the old version). Changes include a clear definition of hearsay, explanation of situational vulnerability and special measures for vulnerable witnesses, a more balanced approach to dishonesty, an updated section on review hearings, and clearer definitions distinguishing sexual harassment from sexual motivation. Sanctions guidance last checked: September 2026.
The central question is whether fitness to practise is impaired now. Decision-makers look at present risk, the likelihood of recurrence, current competence and conduct, time elapsed, evidence of changed practice, public confidence and professional standards.
Insight is not saying sorry. In a GOC case it means showing that you understand what happened, your responsibility, the impact on patients and trust, which standards were engaged, the future risk, and the safeguards you have put in place, and that you have applied that learning.
Disputing facts does not automatically prevent insight. You can contest what happened while showing you understand why the alleged conduct would matter. Take advice before making statements about disputed facts.
| Reflection | Insight |
|---|---|
| Examines the event | Understands its significance |
| Identifies learning | Recognises responsibility |
| Considers alternatives | Explains future change |
| Describes learning | Demonstrates application |
| Looks backwards | Connects past conduct to future risk |
The GOC's CPD scheme gives optometrists and dispensing opticians an unusually good structure for remediation. The 2025–27 cycle includes mandatory elements such as a personal development plan, peer review and a reflective exercise, alongside self-directed CPD.
CPD is ongoing development every registrant must complete. Remediation is a targeted response to an identified concern. In an FTP case, the key question is whether learning is relevant to the concern and how it has been applied in practice. A PDP that links the concern, the learning and the evidence of change is far more persuasive than a list of CPD points.
| Evidence | Potential relevance |
|---|---|
| Relevant CPD | Knowledge gained |
| Assessed course | Demonstrated understanding |
| Reflection | Learning and insight |
| Personal development plan | Planned, targeted development |
| Clinical or records audit | Application in practice |
| Supervisor or peer report | Observed improvement |
| Competency assessment | Demonstrated capability |
| Workplace evidence | Sustained change |
| Repeat audit | Ongoing improvement over time |
Sight testing, clinical decision-making, detection and referral of pathology, prescribing for those on specialty registers, vulnerable patients, emergency response and delegation. Missed pathology cases usually turn on the adequacy of the examination and the records.
Competence remediationDispensing advice, communication, referrals, contact lens fitting for those on the specialty register, record keeping and supervision. Concerns often involve scope and appropriate referral.
Professionalism remediationWho can perform which activity, appropriate supervision of students and unregistered staff, responsibility and documentation. Watch for changes from the GOC's 2026 consultation on testing of sight and delegation.
Performance remediationValid consent, options, risks, alternatives and costs, patient understanding and documentation (standard 3). The GOC publishes consent guidance.
Documentation remediationThe 2025 standards and GOC guidance on patients in vulnerable circumstances raise expectations on communication, safeguarding and reasonable adjustments.
Professionalism remediationProbity cases need concern-specific analysis: why honesty matters to patient trust, what led to the conduct, and evidence of honest practice over time. Generic CPD is not enough.
Probity remediationIf the Fitness to Practise Committee finds fitness to practise impaired, it can impose the sanctions below. Sanctions take effect 28 days after the substantive hearing unless an immediate order is imposed.
Issued about future conduct or performance when fitness to practise is found not impaired. Not subject to an appeal period; takes effect immediately.
Payable within a period set by the committee. Non-payment can lead to court action and referral to the Investigation Committee.
Stay on the register provided you comply with conditions, such as extra training. A review hearing may follow when the period ends.
Cannot practise, or continue training if a student. Suspension from a specialty register stops those specialty duties. A review hearing may follow.
Cannot practise or, if a student, continue training. Cannot be imposed where impairment is due to adverse physical or mental health. Published erasure outcomes generally remain visible for five years under the GOC's disclosure policy.
The committee can also find misconduct but no current impairment. Current GOC outcomes in 2026 include suspensions from two to nine months and erasures. See FTP outcomes and sanctions to compare regulators.
| GOC | Employer |
|---|---|
| Professional regulator | Employer or practice owner |
| Registration | Employment |
| Public protection | Workplace matters |
| Standards of Practice | Employment policies |
| Can affect registration | Can affect employment |
Different purposes, decision-makers and processes. A criminal outcome does not simply dictate the regulatory outcome.
Refunds, products and service disputes usually go to the practice or the Optical Consumer Complaints Service, not FTP.
A concern about a registered optical business is judged against the Standards for Optical Businesses, separately from any individual's FTP.
Courses may provide evidence of relevant learning, and can sit within your personal development plan. Course completion alone does not establish insight, competence, remediation or any GOC outcome.
Structured CPD · 1.5 CPD ptsStructured CPD · 1.5 CPD ptsStructured CPD · 1.5 CPD ptsStructured CPD · 2 CPD ptsStructured CPD · 2 CPD ptsStructured CPD · 2 CPD ptsStructured CPD · 1.5 CPD ptsStructured CPD · 2 CPD ptsStructured CPD · 3 CPD ptsDepending on the concern, Probity, Confidentiality, Safe Prescribing or Duty of Candour may also be relevant. See all GOC remediation courses or all courses.
Carefully, twice.
Exactly what is alleged.
Especially for representations.
Securely.
It creates a probity issue.
Which of the 19.
While memory is fresh.
Know versus think.
From the root cause.
AOP, FODO, ABDO or a solicitor.
Targeted, via your PDP.
Audit, peer review, feedback.
For case examiners and any hearing.
Throughout the process.
This page is educational and is not a substitute for case-specific legal or regulatory advice. Consider independent advice, for example through your professional body's legal service, before responding to allegations, making admissions or submitting evidence.
A simplified educational model.
The GOC's process for deciding whether an optometrist's or dispensing optician's fitness to practise is impaired, and what action is needed to protect the public.
Optometrists, dispensing opticians, optical students and optical businesses.
Concerns about clinical competence, records, consent, supervision, prescribing, confidentiality, probity, boundaries, discrimination, convictions or health that may show impaired fitness to practise.
Yes, about fitness to practise. Consumer disputes about products, refunds or service usually go to the practice or the Optical Consumer Complaints Service.
The GOC acknowledges it and carries out triage. If it opens a formal investigation, it tells you.
Preliminary enquiries to decide whether the concern should be formally investigated.
A case-management tool for deciding whether a complaint amounts to an allegation of impaired fitness to practise requiring investigation under section 13D of the Opticians Act.
Gathering clinical records, witness statements and sometimes independent expert opinion, then sending you all the evidence for written representations.
Two decision-makers, one registrant and one lay, who decide what happens to each complaint after investigation.
No further action (with or without advice), a warning, referral to the Fitness to Practise Committee, or referral to the Investigation Committee if they disagree or need a health or performance assessment.
Whether your fitness to practise is impaired now, considering risk, recurrence, insight, remediation and public confidence, not only what happened.
Understanding what happened, your responsibility, the impact, the standards engaged and the future risk, shown through changed practice.
Potentially, by showing you understand why the alleged conduct would matter. Take advice first.
Yes, it can be highly relevant to current impairment and sanction. It cannot guarantee an outcome.
No. It shows learning. Remediation needs relevance to the concern and evidence of application.
The independent committee that hears referred cases and decides facts, impairment and sanction, and considers interim orders.
Substantive hearings are held in public under rule 25(1), though they can take place remotely or on the papers.
A formal warning about future conduct or performance, used where fitness to practise is not impaired. It takes effect immediately.
Remaining on the register provided you comply with conditions, such as training, usually with a review hearing at the end.
You cannot practise, or continue training, for up to 12 months. A review hearing may follow.
Removal from the register. It cannot be imposed where impairment is due to health.
Yes. The Fitness to Practise Committee can impose a financial penalty of up to £50,000.
Immediate suspension or conditional registration while a case continues, where needed to protect the public or in the public interest. Not a finding.
It can if serious or repeated, but a single mistake, handled openly and learned from, often does not show current impairment.
Yes, particularly where records do not support the examination or advice given, or have been altered.
No. The GOC says many declarations need no further action. Failing to declare is the bigger risk.
Yes. Convictions must be declared and are assessed for what they mean for fitness to practise.
The test applied to registered optical students. Suspension or erasure stops a student continuing their training.
The test applied to registered optical businesses, separate from any individual's fitness to practise.
No. IRR Practice is an independent education provider. It is not the GOC and does not make regulatory decisions.
This guide is based on the GOC's published material. IRR Practice is independent; naming the GOC does not imply endorsement.
Content governance. Last reviewed September 2026. Next review March 2027, or sooner if GOC legislation, rules, standards or guidance change. IRR Practice is an independent healthcare education provider. It is not the General Optical Council and does not make regulatory decisions.
CPD, standards, investigations and remediation for optometrists and dispensing opticians.
Writes for IRR Practice on professional standards, fitness to practise, insight, reflection and remediation for UK healthcare professionals.
Last reviewed: September 2026