AN eye specialist who carried out a sight test on an elderly patient while she was ASLEEP has been struck off.

Mark Walker also gave an eye exam at a care home while a second patient was busy taking part in an activity.

A separate patient also had their sight test postponed to avoid a family member being present.

The General Optical Council also found during that test, the optician “only briefly” shone a light in the patient’s eye before later telling the patient’s wife he was “totally blind”.

Mark Walker, whose practice is listed at Colchester Road, Chappel, also ordered changes be made to documents which showed when he was due to carry out eye tests in schools and in care homes.

The council’s fitness to practise committee found Mr Walker had shown no remorse and ordered his name to be struck off the register with immediate effect.

Mr Walker, whose actions came to light after an employee raised concerns with the council, was previously handed a three-year warning in June 2013 for “clinical failings”.

The committee, chaired by Eileen Carr, said: “The registrant’s actions put patients at unwarranted risk of harm and were for financial gain.

“The committee was satisfied that the registrant’s actions amount to a serious departure from the relevant professional standards.

“He acted dishonestly, over a period of time, putting a group of highly vulnerable patients at risk of harm and abusing their trust.”

The decision report added: “Given the prior analogous history, the committee’s conclusions on the registrant’s lack of remorse and failure to demonstrate any real and tangible insight, it concluded that there exists a real risk of repetition in the future.

“We considered a finding of current impairment on public protection grounds is necessary given the prior history of analogous clinical failings - the absence of any remediation, insight or remorse - and given the committee has found that there is a risk of repetition.

“The committee is, therefore, satisfied that the registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired both on the grounds of public protection and in the wider public interest in order to maintain public confidence in the profession.”

During the hearing, the committee decided Mr Walker had shown “disrespect” for patients’ privacy and dignity.

The committee found no mitigating factors.