North Yorkshire Local Optical Committee

Quarterly Meeting; Thursday 4th June 2026

Minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 4th June 2026, 19:00 – 21:00, Online/Virtual via Zoom.

Attendance & Purpose

• Attendees: Katherine Fris (Chair), Melanie Linguar (Facilitator), Ruth Young (Minute Taker), Charlotte Turner, Eleanor Mace, Kate Malyn, Siobhan Haralabidis, Sejal Patel
• Observers: Ellie Barker (Specsavers), Candy Scott (Sightcare), Mark Edson (Strategic Lead Clinical Networks for ICB)
• Absent (with apologies): Deryck Watts, Katie Nichols, Sarah Farrell, Observer: Craig Williams (Scarborough Specsavers), Observer: Nizz Sabir (LON chair)
• Purpose: Decided at the last meeting/AGM (30/03/26) that there would be 2 of the 4 annual meetings online. This is the committee’s first online meeting.

1. ICB Updates & Restructuring

• Debbie Leadbetter no longer GOS commissioner
  • Moving into a more dental-focused role as part of restructuring
  • Committee felt this was a significant loss given her accessibility and support
  • New commissioner had not yet been named at the time of the meeting
• North Yorkshire becoming a single “place”
  • Previously split across two place structures
  • New arrangement aligns better with LOC footprint
  • Should simplify commissioning relationships by reducing to one main commissioning structure
  • Neighbourhood structure beneath “place” still undecided
• ICB restructuring still ongoing
  • Mark said process was taking longer than in some other ICBs
  • Most posts still in consultation/interview stage
  • Concrete appointments expected end of June / beginning of July
  • General sense of uncertainty and transition across the system

2. ICB / Clinical Network Relationship

• Mark Edson introduced role and context
  • Works for CAP (collaborative of acute providers), not directly for the ICB
  • His role is to coordinate clinical network activity and link acute trusts with commissioners and stakeholders
  • He attended to improve direct engagement with LOC rather than relying only on daytime network meetings
• Clinical network meetings had been slimmed down
  • Attendance reduced to focus on those doing acute trust work
  • Mark acknowledged this had reduced primary care airtime
  • Proposed attending LOC meetings as a more practical way to improve engagement

3. Single Point of Access (SPoA)

• ICB treating SPoA as business as usual
  • LOC strongly disagreed with that position
  • Committee view was that too many practical issues remain unresolved
• Outstanding concerns raised by LOC
  • GDPR questions still being raised, particularly by Specsavers Optical Group
  • Pre-reg and locum access still unclear
  • Out-of-area referrals remain problematic
  • Gateway sign-up process is time-consuming and not straightforward
  • Queries continue to come through from practices
• Feedback from committee members
  • One practitioner said sign-up took several weeks despite having guidance and prior understanding
  • Suggestion that onboarding process needs review because it is not efficient in practice
• Project support changing
  • Hassan, who had been a key point of contact, is finishing on June 30
  • Future SPoA enquiries to go to Alex at the choice office
• Mark’s response
  • Agreed move to business as usual was too early
  • Said network had also raised concerns with the ICB
  • Network submitted a closure report setting out unresolved issues
  • Warned next few months may be bumpy due to restructuring and personnel changes

4. Post-Cataract Scheme

• Scheme still not launched
  • Mark said it remains under discussion with ICB finance team
  • Finance team reviewing figures in business case
  • No confirmed start date yet
• LOC frustration about engagement
  • Katherine said LOC had previously contributed actively to early cataract and SPOA work
  • Since then, communication had dropped off significantly
  • Concern that a post-cataract scheme could be finalised without sufficient optometry input
• Concerns about draft scheme design
  • Early drafts could not be shared fully with performers/contractors
  • Clinical wording had needed correction
  • LOC still had no clarity on fee structure or practical delivery expectations
• Mark agreed to help
  • Said acute trusts remain committed to post-cataract checks being delivered in the community
  • Offered to try to include Katherine in a commissioning meeting to help re-establish dialogue

5. Glaucoma Pilot / Community Glaucoma Scheme

• Community glaucoma work identified as priority
  • Mark said all clinicians he had spoken to supported glaucoma checks in the community
  • Network has prioritised this area for the year
• Existing background
  • There is a previous business case / pilot history
  • LOC still holds £30,000 ring-fenced NHS money originally intended for glaucoma-related work
  • Previous pilot stalled because of funding and long-term commissioning concerns
• Mark’s proposed business case needs
  • Evidence of practice capacity
  • Audit of available equipment
  • Understanding of training needs
  • Strong enough data that the ICB cannot easily delay or challenge the scheme
• Committee feedback on requirements
  • Practices need transparency on what tests, qualifications and equipment would be required
  • Remuneration must be clear before practices can say whether delivery is viable
  • Equipment costs could be substantial, especially visual fields
  • LOC could help survey practices if specification is clear enough
• Remuneration discussion
  • Committee stressed this was not about making profit
  • Main point was that practices should not be expected to deliver the service at a loss
  • Costs would need to cover clinician time, admin time, equipment and overheads
• Scope discussion
  • Question raised whether scheme should begin with stable monitoring or referral refinement
  • Mark said initial thinking was stable patients, but project should evolve over time
  • Katherine pointed out enhanced referral refinement might also reduce unnecessary hospital referrals
• Broader system context
  • Trusts recognise glaucoma backlog is not sustainable
  • He also said one concern from ICB perspective is “double running” costs if community and hospital services are both funded at the same time
  • Committee noted glaucoma was gaining political attention nationally, including being raised in Parliament as a postcode lottery
• Next step agreed
  • Mark to provide more detailed specification
  • LOC can then help design and distribute a meaningful workforce/capacity survey

6. Working Relationship with Secondary Care

• Committee wanted stronger hospital-community relationship
  • Discussion highlighted the value of direct collaboration with ophthalmology
  • Example given from Scotland where IP optometrists can speak directly to ophthalmologists for advice
• Concern in England
  • Additional qualifications often still leave optometrists feeling unsupported
  • More accessible consultant advice would help services work better
• Mark supportive
  • Said one of his aims this year is to improve stakeholder engagement and bring services together more effectively
  • Mentioned possible seminar later in the year with an eye care section

7. Paediatric Screening Project

• Katie absent due to personal circumstances
  • Discussion continued in her absence
• Current progress
  • Vonnie and Katie had reviewed previous work
  • Plan is to contact surrounding LOCs to compare local paediatric screening arrangements
  • Information will support targeted letters to MPs highlighting postcode variation
• General committee position
  • Expectation that progress with council will be difficult
  • Committee felt momentum should still continue because no one else is likely to champion the issue locally
• Awareness campaign ideas
  • Ruth shared a children’s eye test leaflet received through the post
  • Discussion about using August / summer holidays as a promotional month for children’s eye care
  • Practices could align messaging and encourage children’s appointments during quieter periods
• Public awareness concerns
  • Committee noted parents often do not realise there is no local school screening
  • Examples discussed of children presenting late with amblyopia or other issues
• Actions discussed
  • Social media campaign
  • Possible local press / awareness articles
  • Asset pack for practices to use on their own channels
  • Subcommittee to clarify what minimum acceptable pathway the LOC would support

8. WOPEC Event

• Event judged successful
  • 2 glaucoma candidates
  • 11 MECS candidates
  • 10 foreign body workshop attendees
  • Majority passed and feedback was strong
• Reach beyond local area
  • Majority of participants were from North Yorkshire
  • Some came from East Yorkshire and elsewhere
  • One attendee travelled from London and paid privately
• Costs and income
  • LOC had paid just over £1,500 for assessors, patient and practice costs
  • £520 income received from non-North Yorkshire participants
  • WOPEC invoice still outstanding
• Future suggestions
  • Keep event yearly
  • Likely reduce/avoid glaucoma assessment element unless demand increases
  • Increase MECS rotations instead
  • Foreign body workshop seen as especially worthwhile

9. Email / Data Compliance

• LOCSU guidance required changes
  • Current single-user Gmail setup not sufficient
  • Need compliant multi-user system with proper file storage and access logging
• Proposed solution
  • Move to Google Workspace rather than Microsoft 365
  • Seen as easier because current systems already sit within Google ecosystem
• Requirements discussed
  • Multi-factor authentication
  • Individual named logins
  • Cloud storage rather than files on personal devices
  • Better control of access and audit trail
• Cost discussion
  • Approx £5.90 per user per month
  • Four users proposed
  • Committee agreed this was a necessary compliance cost
• Other points raised
  • Concerns about WhatsApp and personal device use for committee business
  • Need for further clarification on encryption and compliance rules
  • AI transcription tool no longer needed as paid version because free version now offers unlimited minutes

10. Social Media Update

• Ruth gave update on performance
  • Facebook: 235 views
  • LinkedIn: 1,161 impressions
  • Growth described as strong over two months
• Current approach
  • Posting awareness-day content
  • Scheduling posts in the morning for better visibility
  • Open to ideas from committee
• Jobs on social media
  • Ruth raised concern about creating bespoke job adverts
  • Felt LOC should not effectively provide unpaid advertising design work for selected roles
  • Compromise suggested: share existing employer posts, but not create full original adverts

11. Student / University Engagement

• Committee discussed engaging students earlier
  • Aim is to build awareness of what the LOC is and encourage involvement from newly qualified professionals
• Current and possible links
  • Teesside had already had an LOC-related talk
  • Bradford identified as a useful next university contact
  • Ellie offered to help with Bradford contacts

12. Committee Visibility / “What Can Your LOC Do For You?”

• Need to make committee members more visible
  • Discussion about adding bios and photos to website/social media
  • Aim is to help local practitioners know who the committee are and what support they offer
• Ruth offered to help structure this
  • Suggested collecting standard profile information and light personal details to make posts more engaging

13. Treasury / Finance Update

• Annual financial review prepared by LocumKit
  • Charlotte said review gave much clearer understanding of LOC finances
  • Included detailed audit-style review of transactions and follow-up queries
• Year-end changed
  • Financial year moved from end of February to end of normal financial year
  • Intended to simplify accounts going forward
• Payroll still delayed
  • Charlotte still waiting on progress from LocumKit colleague handling payroll
  • Possible delay linked to HMRC registration / corporation tax setup issues
• ICB funds
  • Majority of ICB money had been returned
  • Committee expressed relief that this had now largely been tidied up

14. PECS / Primary Eyecare Services Update

• Katherine attended regional event
  • PECS currently covers 65% of UK
  • Had £49m income last year, with 87% paid back to practices for service delivery
  • Main growth area was MECS
• Main message
  • PECS wants proactive LOC engagement around recommissioning and tariff harmonisation
  • Katherine saw value in maintaining relationships while also doing due diligence on alternatives ahead of local contract renewal

15. HES Relationship Building

• Initial contact had taken place with hospital colleague
  • First meeting helped clarify concerns around urgent referrals and hospital expectations
  • Did not yet produce a detailed action plan
• Future plans
  • Follow-up meeting planned
  • Aim is to improve both York and Harrogate access routes
  • Specific goals include clearer urgent referral routes, feedback on referrals, and possibly more consistent consultant advice channels

16. OFNC / Contractor Survey

• Katherine gave background on OFNC work with Department of Health
  • Fee discussions now being approached differently by DHSC
  • Concern that system is focused more on fixed budget allocation than actual cost of providing care
• Main OFNC strategy
  • Highlighting unpaid work currently being done beyond GOS contract
  • Survey intended to collect contractor evidence to strengthen negotiating position
• Committee agreed to support
  • Felt supporting the contractor survey was a good use of LOC time
  • Agreed newsletter / comms should go out quickly
  • Katherine proposed support call so contractors could understand survey and why it matters

17. LOCSU / Regional Updates

• GIRFT / glaucoma work discussed regionally
  • Mel volunteered to attend relevant call and report back
• PPV guidance expected soon
  • Increasing post-payment verification workload noted as a wider issue
• Sexual safety charter
  • ICB emails had gone out to practices
  • Existing advice remains and guidance was given in a previous LOCSU newsletter
• Other regional note
  • North Cumbria had lost school screening provision, which committee noted given North Yorkshire’s efforts to improve children’s pathways

18. Workforce Funding

• Two applications received
  • One approved
  • One likely to be declined because outside scope
• Legacy applications
  • Committee agreed any delayed payments from previous year should come from the already allocated funding pot rather than complicating current arrangements

19. CPD Event Update

• Charlotte gave update
  • Sponsorship had gone well
  • Event support from Diane and Nina described positively
  • Planning felt in a good place
• Observer contribution
  • Cindy from SightCare introduced herself
  • Interested in collaboration around social media, awareness campaigns and university links
  • Committee welcomed this, while noting LOC resources must remain open to all practices across the area

20. Special Educational Needs / Special School Eye Care

• ICB considering future SEND / special school model
  • Pilot had taken place locally
  • ICB now required to provide this service more formally
• Concerns about standard contract
  • Standard service model seen as too limited
  • Did not appear to allow properly for repeat visits or full complexity of need
• Hybrid model raised
  • ICB considering mixture of in-school care and enhanced support in community practice
  • Committee discussed limits of community-only model for some children, especially those who cannot engage in practice settings
• Wider equity point raised
  • Katherine questioned why special school children might receive screening while mainstream children still do not
  • Committee noted this as part of the broader paediatric access problem
• Task and finish group being formed
  • ICB looking for LOC representation
  • Committee invited expressions of interest

21. Next Meeting

• Next meeting proposed for Monday 7th September
  • Face-to-face
  • Crown at Boroughbridge
  • 6:30pm food, 7:00pm start

Meeting Closed.