PART 3

What the 2026 Assessment Failed to Do

Part 3 examines the procedural, clinical, and governance failures that occurred during the 2026 assessment. While Part 2 established the contradictions and the break in continuity, this section explains how the assessment went wrong — step by step — and why its findings cannot be relied upon for any aspect of care, risk assessment, or decision‑making.

 

The failures described in Part 3 are not differences of clinical opinion. They are failures of:

  • method
  • framework
  • procedure
  • continuity
  • safeguarding
  • governance

Each subsection sets out a specific failure, the standard that should have been met, what actually happened, and the impact on the young person’s safety and clinical record.

3.1 — Failure to Use the Correct Clinical Framework

 

The 2026 assessment failed at the very first step: it used the wrong clinical framework for the young person’s condition.

 

What should have happened

A young person with:

  • a long‑established neurological visual impairment
  • permanent disruption of eye‑movement control
  • vertical nystagmus
  • spatial‑awareness deficits
  • a 30‑year specialist baseline

should have been assessed using a neuro‑visual framework, which includes:

  • specialist neuro‑ophthalmic methods
  • functional‑vision evaluation
  • assessment of eye‑movement control
  • analysis of neurological nystagmus
  • interpretation by clinicians trained in neurological impairment

This is the standard required for continuity of care and clinical safety.

What actually happened

The 2026 clinician used:

  • a routine WGOS 1 sight test
  • designed for ocular conditions
  • not neurological conditions

Routine optometry measures:

  • refraction
  • acuity
  • lens power
  • ocular alignment
  • general eye health

It does not measure:

  • neurological nystagmus
  • impaired pursuit and saccadic control
  • visual‑processing deficits
  • spatial‑awareness impairment
  • functional‑vision limitations

By choosing a routine optometric framework, the clinician assessed the wrong system.

Why this is a procedural failure

Clinical frameworks exist to ensure:

  • the right tests
  • the right methods
  • the right interpretation
  • the right conclusions

Using the wrong framework means:

  • the impairment cannot be measured
  • the findings cannot be valid
  • the conclusions cannot be relied upon
  • the record becomes inaccurate
  • safeguarding is compromised

This is not a minor oversight. It is a procedural failure that invalidates the entire assessment.

3.2 — Failure to Conduct Required Neuro Visual Tests

 

The 2026 assessment did not include the tests required to evaluate a neurological visual impairment. This is not a small omission — it is a procedural failure that meant the clinician could not measure the young person’s actual condition.

 

What should have been done

 

A neurological visual impairment requires a set of specialist tests that assess:

  • eye‑movement control
  • vertical nystagmus
  • pursuit and saccadic function
  • visual‑processing ability
  • functional vision in real‑world environments
  • spatial‑awareness performance

These tests are standard in neuro visual assessment and are essential for:

  • identifying risk
  • understanding functional limitations
  • maintaining continuity with the long‑term baseline
  • ensuring clinical safety

What was actually done

 

The 2026 clinician performed:

  • routine refraction
  • standard acuity testing
  • basic ocular‑health checks

These are appropriate for ocular conditions, such as:

  • refractive error
  • lens changes
  • general eye health

They are not appropriate for neurological impairment.

 

Tests that were missing

 

The assessment did not include:

  • measurement of vertical nystagmus
  • analysis of gaze stability
  • assessment of pursuit and saccadic control
  • evaluation of visual‑processing speed
  • spatial‑awareness testing
  • functional‑vision assessment
  • comparison with the established neurological baseline

Without these tests, the clinician could not:

  • detect the neurological impairment
  • measure its severity
  • understand its functional impact
  • recognise the permanent nature of the condition

Why this is a procedural failure

 

Clinical testing is not optional. It is governed by:

  • professional standards
  • clinical guidelines
  • safeguarding expectations
  • continuity‑of‑care requirements

When a clinician omits the tests required for the condition they are assessing, the assessment becomes:

  • incomplete
  • inaccurate
  • clinically unsafe
  • procedurally invalid

The 2026 assessment failed to use the tools necessary to measure the impairment it was supposed to evaluate.

Impact on the young person

Because the required neuro visual tests were not performed:

  • neurological features were missed
  • permanent impairments were misinterpreted
  • functional‑vision needs were not identified
  • risk was underestimated
  • the clinical record became misleading
  • continuity with the 30‑year baseline was broken

With the framework failure established, the next section turns to the practical consequences: the absence of the specialist neuro‑visual tests required to measure the young person’s condition.

 

 

Next 3.3 — Failure to Assess Functional Vision

 

 

 

Design & Copyright Owner Maureen Booth-Martin (MBM) © All rights reserved

UA-54289644-1