Part 3

3.6 — Failure to Provide Clinically Justified Findings

The 2026 assessment presented conclusions that were not supported by the tests performed, not consistent with the young person’s known neurological condition, and not clinically possible given the established baseline.

 

A clinician cannot simply state a finding. They must be able to justify it with:

  • appropriate methodology

  • correct clinical tools

  • evidence

  • reasoning

  • continuity with the long‑term record

The 2026 assessment did none of these.

Findings that required justification — but none was provided

The 2026 letter claimed that:

  • nystagmus was “intermittent”

  • neurological features were “variable”

  • certain impairments were “not observed today”

  • the eyes were “stable compared to previous sight tests”

Each of these statements contradicts:

  • the 30‑year neurological baseline

  • the 2018 specialist findings

  • the known behaviour of neurological nystagmus

  • the permanent nature of the impairment

Any clinician making such claims must provide:

  • evidence

  • explanation

  • methodology

  • clinical reasoning

The 2026 assessment provided none.

Why the findings were not clinically justified

 

1. The wrong tests were used

 

Routine optometric tests cannot:

  • detect neurological nystagmus
  • measure pursuit or saccadic control
  • assess spatial awareness
  • evaluate functional vision
  • identify visual‑processing deficits

If the clinician did not use the correct tests, they could not produce valid findings.

2. The findings contradicted the long‑term record

When a clinician reports findings that contradict decades of specialist evidence, they must:

  • explain the discrepancy

  • justify the change

  • provide evidence of improvement or fluctuation

  • reference the baseline

The 2026 letter did none of this.

3. The findings were physiologically impossible

Neurological nystagmus cannot:

  • come and go

  • appear intermittently

  • vary between appointments

  • disappear during routine testing

If a clinician reports this, it means:

  • the impairment was not measured

  • the wrong framework was used

  • the clinician misinterpreted what they saw

4. No rationale was provided

The letter did not explain:

  • why neurological features were described as intermittent

  • why the impairment appeared to fluctuate

  • why findings differed from the 2018 specialist report

  • why the long‑term baseline was not referenced

  • why routine methods were used for a neurological condition

Without rationale, the findings cannot be considered clinically valid.

Why this is a procedural failure

 

Clinical justification is a core requirement of:

  • professional standards
  • record‑keeping
  • safeguarding
  • governance
  • continuity of care

When a clinician records findings that:

  • contradict the baseline
  • are not supported by evidence
  • are not measured using appropriate tools
  • are not explained
  • are not physiologically possible

the assessment becomes:

  • clinically unsafe
  • procedurally invalid
  • misleading
  • unreliable for decision‑making

This is not a difference of opinion. It is a failure to meet clinical and governance standards.

Impact on the young person

Because the findings were not clinically justified:

  • the impairment was minimised

  • risk was underestimated

  • functional‑vision needs were obscured

  • the clinical record became misleading

  • future professionals may be misinformed

  • safeguarding decisions could be compromised

The 2026 letter cannot be relied upon because its conclusions are unsupported, unexplained, and clinically impossible.

The absence of clinical justification left the 2026 assessment unsafe and unreliable. The final section of Part 3 examines the safeguarding and governance failures that resulted from these procedural errors.

 

Next 3.7

Failure to Meet Safeguarding and Governance Standards

 

 

 

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

UA-54289644-1