Optician Space

Eyeyo Inang a blogger & web developer ...

alapang — Sun, 26 May 2013 03:23:04 GMT

Eyeyo Inang hello all good day,
This is the first time I have joined opticianonline forum.

By: Eyeyo Inang

End this 'high street monopoly'

Alex — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 10:25:01 GMT

On Monday 16th BBC Radio's 4 You & Yours broadcast an item on Metsuki's campaign for consumers to be given complete and accessible prescription information, including their PD, after an eye examination. Optician readers can listen to this via: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p009fnxz

Opticians listening to this will be left in no doubt that there is a growing trend for consumers to purchase Rx eyewear online and a growing expectation that their testing optician should provide them all the necessary information to enable them to make informed decisions about what eyewear to buy and freedom of choice to buy it wherever they like.

So why are the GOC, the College of Optometrists and ABDO in particular, fabricating an entirely arbitrary distinction between eye testing and eyewear sales to justify withholding customers' PD? This is a last-ditch effort by opticians to maintain their high street monopoly on the sale of Rx eyewear.

When asked why the PD measurement is not included on the Rx, Jon Levett (director of standards, GOC) explained to the 3.3 million listeners that the health and safety of the consumer is at the very heart of what the regulator does but completely failed to make any health and safety case for omitting this information from the Rx. He added that there's nothing to stop consumers asking their optician to take the PD measurement. I have letters from two of the four high street optical chains which say the advice of the professional bodies is that their members should not provide patients with their PD unless they purchase their glasses from them. This is tantamount to extortion.

The GOC in particular must face up to this issue. The health and safety function it performs, while being at the heart of its role, is not its only function. Government imposes upon the GOC a duty and a responsibility to carry out a competition assessment of the regulations which it sets. The Sight Testing Regulations as they stand are anti-competitive and distort the operation an efficient market for Rx eyewear to the detriment of 66 per cent of the UK population who wear glasses.

On March 4 this year I wrote to Dian Taylor, chief executive of the GOC setting out a comprehensive, evidence based, case for regulatory change. I am still waiting for a response!

Ewan McFarlane

metsuki.com

Alan Zavacky A new guy on the board

albertslak — Tue, 21 May 2013 08:15:41 GMT

Alan Zavacky a good day to all, Its an honor to be here...

Regards:
Alan Zavacky

any questions

billharvey — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:51:06 GMT

confused by the new rules? Please feel free to post your comments or questions here

interactive cet

antsav — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 21:14:58 GMT

can someone please direct me to the place where i can obtain my interactive and peer review points online. I am currently overseas practising and unable to join face to face in the uk. thanks

Gaspare Scot Buonavita who is online

mlakus — Thu, 16 May 2013 16:27:24 GMT

I am Gaspare Scot Buonavita Glad to part of the opticianonline community

Best Regadrs:
Gaspare Scot Buonavita

Join fight against exploitation

Comment and opinion — Thu, 09 May 2013 15:06:36 GMT

One of the issues that the Association for Independent Optometrists and Dispensing Opticians (AIO) is campaigning for is that any practice providing a ‘free’ eye test or charging less than the GOS fee should be unable to claim a full GOS fee from the local payment authority, this for the following reasons:

● It is immoral to claim a fee from the state for something that is otherwise being provided for less, or even given away for nothing

● It amounts to discrimination against those who are entitled to an NHS test by making the state pay when everyone else going to that practice gets it either for less or for ‘free’

● It forces the practices performing free or discounted eye tests to have to sell more spectacles per client. This leads to over-prescribing which can create in the public a mistrust of the profession as a whole

● There is little chance of a realistic fee ever being paid by the state for a service that is commonly used merely as a loss leader to obtain a sale

● It demeans the whole optical profession by making the service we provide appear worthless.

Most independent practitioners would agree with this logic. So, it appears would multiple-employed practitioners, many of whom have expressed, while visiting the AIO stand at Optrafair, their concerns over the way they are forced to practise.

We heard many stories of professional judgement being over-ruled by commercial pressures, for example the reduction of ‘testing’ times to an unacceptable degree and the enforcement of high per cent conversion rates. Failure to comply in either of these by an employee would result in a manager’s reprimand at the least, even for graduates in their pre-registration year.

Such exploitation of a professionally qualified person, registered or unregistered, should not be allowed to continue. For the future of the profession we urge those who find themselves in contentious circumstances to make formal complaint to the GOC − their employer is unlikely to be complying with the Code of Conduct as stipulated for Body Corporates.

If in any doubt about this course of action, informally contact the GOC beforehand for advice.

David Beaumont, AIO Chairman

Peter Warren, AIO Vice Chairman

Patricia Davies, AIO Secretary

Response to ASA ruling

Comment and opinion — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:13:22 GMT

I was very surprised at the article, (News 28.09.12) entitled ‘ASA uphold complaint’. Firstly, because the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) complaint was addressed to Prescription Logistics Limited (PLL) as the advertiser (not to Daysoft as you state), and secondly because PLL had already advised the ASA that it intended to submit an appeal in accordance with the ASA advertisement appraisal process.

We are informed by PLL that it strenuously disagrees with the ASA conclusion and, given the above, it would appear to Daysoft Limited that, by Optician placing information in the public domain in this way (no doubt relying on ASA information), the objectivity of any subsequent review may be compromised. It is worth adding that, in the opinion of Daysoft Limited, the ads referred to are by no stretch of the imagination ‘misleading’; the considerable savings advertised, clearly comparing daysoft 1-day lenses to Acuvue 1-day lenses, are entirely factual and based on robust evidence.

It is unfortunate that

Optician did not consult with Daysoft Limited before publication at which point the above would have been made clear. May I request therefore that you kindly publish this letter by way of helping present important facts.

Ron Hamilton

Daysoft

Editor writes

Optician routinely reports on adjudications of the Advertising Standards Authority. In doing this it does not place the information the adjudications contain in the public domain but reports on the contents of those adjudications. Optician does not believe the reporting of ASA rulings compromises any subsequent appeal. The full text of the ASA’s rulings is freely available on the authority’s website www.asa.org.uk. As these reports are of the ASA’s adjudications, individual parties involved are not contacted for comment. In the event of an appeal, Optician will report any subsequent ruling by the ASA, subject to the usual editorial conditions.

Steve Borsuk

emanueltim — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 06:19:30 GMT

Hello everyone i am Steve Borsuk

Regards:
Steve Borsuk

The Factory LLC

Chezmac — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 04:34:14 GMT

Hello newbie from The Factory LLC Best regard The Factory LLC

Newbie!! "alan zavacky"

chipshead — Sun, 17 Jun 2012 14:26:32 GMT

hello i'm a newbie here ..

i'm alan zavacky ..

i want to join this forum co'z i want to improve and widen my knowledge about forum. hope all member here are friendly and helpful ...

hope to learn more thing here..

respectfully your's,

alan zavacky :)

cet

LIFEOUTSIDE — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 15:54:17 GMT

As a now part time Dispensing Optician, i am disheartened by the new CET rules. I do not live in a town or city anywhere close to any of these courses for CET points. Firstly i do not want to travel after work by myself on public transport to a place I've never been too at my own cost.

Secondly I cannot get childcare. I have two children. One of them, a young baby is high needs and cannot be left on an evening. The childcare I have during the day is a family member who is unable to do evenings.

I do my job well but when it is hometime I want to be home with my children, i do not want to do this. There is no reward for it, I do not get reimbursed for my expenses and I am already paying well above average fees for someone in a similar job.

Where do I go from here?

A dose of the real world is due

Comment and opinion — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 11:03:51 GMT

I’m compelled to agree with the comments in Arthur Gill’s letter ‘New CET is a solution seeking a problem’ (22.03.13).

I was an advocate of the proposed changes, but the administrative logistics of new CET post attendance seem cumbersome and time-consuming for individuals. The GOC’s website is far from intuitive and the number of associated queries for the new round of CET in this journal simply confirm issues have been poorly communicated.

I note the usual suspects – the clique of, dare I say, arrogant, opinionated, in-the-know clinical optometrists (who are probably well paid to be ‘lead facilitators’ – yada yada) many of whom I doubt have ever completed a VAT return in their lives or have long-established practices (second generation) from the good ol’ days. Then, worse still, we have ‘the great and the good’ from the AOP (and ‘pseudo-academics’ from the College) adding their two cents’ worth on the merry CET bandwagon.

Rather than supporting and serving the ordinary optometrist, that ultimately pays for their existence and their ever-bloating organisational structures, it seems CET is the new ‘hammer’ with which they are going to exercise more power and superiority over us, the ‘plebs’, many of us who try our best to serve patients with a hand tied behind our backs.

I recently applied for a part-time position advertised in this journal by the GOC – they did not even have the courtesy to acknowledge my application, arrange an interview or even provide me any feedback on my lack of success. Not even a thanks for taking the time to apply even after I chased my application. Does their arrogance have no limits?

As for the AOP, I don’t feel this organisation or its office bearers have much in common with me or represent my interests well. In my recent communications on a CET query, I had to leave several messages on their personal answer-phones, only for different individuals to call me back, unannounced, several days later – on each occasion, when I was with a patient. No information was offered about the details of the individual calling me back – apart from their name. Neither their role nor responsibility at the AOP was shared. The advice provided was that of a ‘jobsworth’ – cursory and even contradictory at times. I felt like they were making things up as they went along and I was just another lab rat to talk at.

These two organisations in particular remind me of what happens when I call up my local council at 3pm in the afternoon. Methinks a round of austerity, transparency and value for money and a dose of the real world is due all of them.

M Mistry

Warwickshire

Do you have this Alex Paul frame?

Comment and opinion — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 15:29:37 GMT

Does anyone have an Alex Paul frame model 43 colour C20 (black and red) size 53x17? We have a client who is desperate for a replacement of this discontinued frame.

Please telephone 01142 891700 or 01142 701423 Bird Opticians Sheffield, if you can help.

John Bird

Sheffield

C30610 interactive cet

sda57101 — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 14:33:56 GMT

Does anyone know how to see the original CET article C30610 . I have just received confirmation that my points are available to accept but you need to feedback what you learned from the article. I have done 12 or so CET's and don't remember every detail of this.

Split decision

Comment and opinion — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 13:41:47 GMT

After spending some time within the customer care environment of a lens manufacturer, I was more than a little surprised at the sheer number of phonecalls which had to be made to resolve issues. Issues which could easily be avoided. I lost count of the number of orders with missing PDs, heights, even whole prescriptions! Making these phonecalls took a vast amount of time, and caused unnecessary delays to many, many lens orders.

Now mistakes can be made. As human beings, we all make them. But we can try our best to minimise them. Which leads me to my main point. Prescribed prism. To split, or not to split?

One of the phonecalls involved an order for a very large prism. The order had been placed online by an unqualified assistant, into an automated system. While these systems have many advantages over a manual one, the most annoying downside is that they cannot cater for every eventuality. Thus, was the order processed. Thus, was it processed again. Thrice was the order processed, before someone decided it was not possible to surface that much prism into just one of the lenses, and questioned whether it would be possible to split between the two. Thus the time consuming phonecall.

There are a number of points to consider, when placing an order for prescribed prism:

1 What will the cosmetic appearance be, of the finished PAIR of lenses, if the prism is not split between both?

2 Is the manufacturer able to surface high prism into a lens?

3 Is there an optical reason not to split?

4 Is the ordering process automated or manual?

5 Is the person placing the order either qualified enough, or experienced enough to know whether to split prism?

6 Is there a cost implication? Does the manufacturer charge for working prescribed prism, or will ordering such necessitate a surfaced single-vision lens instead of a cheaper, stock one?

This last point also throws up the possibility of NHS fraud being committed. Is it fraud to claim for two prisms on an NHS voucher, if the order is then placed for one surfaced lens (with prism) and one stock lens (without prism)? Or indeed obtaining prism by decentration, while using two stock lenses. Of course it is! You wouldn’t claim for a tint and then not supply it.

A plea to all those writing out prescriptions on record cards, forms, or directly into computer systems (should be optometrists in all cases, but often isn’t). Please consider splitting the prism equally. The patient will benefit from better looking lenses. They are your practice’s walking, talking, free advertisements. Give them spectacles which look awful and count how many referrals you get.

Oh, and as for the three failed attempts with the order, the optician was not charged!

Chris Watson,

Fleetwood, Lancs

Right to choose

Comment and opinion — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 13:38:12 GMT

I’ve just swiftly read the article on the ABDO email about a DVLA tender request and note that Specsavers secured a contract for testing and supply. If things like this continue, independents and anyone unable to secure a contract will be squeezed out of that business as it is not economical or sensible to issue such contracts of great value to anyone except a national company capable of providing a comprehensive and universal service. Before we know it there will be a tender for NHS tests in your region, if not the country, as it will almost definitely be cost effective for PCTs ever-seeking to reduce costs. Let’s face it, one company looks like it’s prepared to do all sight tests for free.

Any such contract limits the choice for the patient to one company and the recent contract to Specsavers has already caused consternation from the patients it is supposed to serve as they would like to be able to choose who to trust their care to.

Our public, however cost effective we need to be, deserve the right to choose whom they see for their care and should be allowed to choose clinicians from personal experience or recommendation as the BOA originally suggested as best practice., not because a firm gives the best price to the contractee.

Let’s get rid of this precedent before it gets rid of optics as we know it. The DVLA, and all the other agencies, needs to realise that a person’s optical clinician must be an individual choice and not a one-size-fits-all. The NHS choices programme was developed specifically for this purpose, why is anyone needing optical care going to be denied choice?

Martin Goldman,

Bournemouth

BABO answer

Comment and opinion — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 13:36:37 GMT

Re ‘Eyes should be on the bigger picture’ (Letters 22.03.13), I have followed this discussion with interest as an experienced optometrist who now looks for and treats many oculomotor balance and accommodative/convergence difficulties. A number of these issues have been found in those diagnosed as dyslexic and indeed after a course of optometric vision training they are no longer classed as ‘dyslexic’.

I now find myself agreeing strongly with Sandra Neave concerning the problem of communication. But I think there is an answer, which lies in the title behavioural optometrist. For all its faults as a description of the role and all the misinformation that surrounds this title in the optical world, it is now widely recognised by occupational therapists, teachers, educational psychologists and parents. Since becoming accredited by the British Association of Behavioural Optometrist in 2002 I have enjoyed a very good relationship with many of these professionals who view me and my fellow behavioural optometrists as a first stop to rule out ‘visual issues’ as part of a child’s learning difficulties.

I would urge anyone looking to create this reputation to visit www.babo.co.uk or to attend BABO’s ‘When spectacles are not enough’ taster session, in Warwick on April 27, 4-7pm.

Ruth Low,

Somerset

Driving Vision

Sandy — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 20:11:35 GMT

We all know the horror stories about potential health problems to contact lens wearers who do not have regular sight tests. This story highlights a different issue which may or may not be linked to internet supply of lenses but certainly contact lens wearers who obtain their lenses on-line are less likely to have regular tests of their vision.

My husband is a Driving Instructor. He has just returned from a lesson with a new pupil. His pupil had already been driving for six months with another instructor so he assumed her vision would meet legal requirements but fortunately he still decided to do his standard checks with a new pupil. He was disturbed to find she could only read a number plate at 10 metres (should be 20 metres!). She was wearing contact lenses but could do no better with her specs.

He told her she needed to get her eyes tested before she did any more driving. She said that although she had struggled with driving she assumed that her vision was not the cause as she was not overdue for her next sight test! But she did agree to get her eyes tested.

I don't know where she gets her contact lenses from or how long it is since her last eye-test appointment, but it worries me that had she been an experienced driving who had already passed her test she and her young child could easily be motorway casualties!

interactive CET

foureyes — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:16:29 GMT

I was just wondering how long does it take before you receive your interactive CET points after you've emailed thru your answers?.

A study into the safety of used optical goods taking sustainability issues in account.

I&I — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 19:56:15 GMT

Hello all,

Could you spare 10 minutes of your time to fill-in my survey regarding sustainability and consumption of ophthalmic equipment?

Would appreciate it very much!

Survey can be found at:https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/BV9LXB6

Many thanks.

Eyes should be on the bigger picture

Comment and opinion — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 16:45:37 GMT

Rather than arguing over who has the definitive answer to the causes and treatments for dyslexia or other specific types of learning difficulties, doesn’t optometry need to be open-minded as to what we can offer to those who are struggling with visually related learning? Experience teaches us that what works with one patient is rejected as useless by another, even though they appear to be having similar problems.

Rather than saying we have all the answers, maybe by working together with child psychologists, teachers etc to promote the importance of eye care, we can convince others that we are not just interested in profiting from the sale of spectacles but actually do have our eyes on the bigger picture.

I don’t have the answer but a big part of optometry’s problem is poor communication. How does a parent know whether the optometrist she is going to is just interested in selling spectacles or has a genuine interest and expertise in paediatric learning difficulties? We may be competent at optometric core skills required for GOS eye tests (even if the technology to prove it defeats us), and some may advertise skills beyond sight testing (eg contact lens practitioners) but who among the general public recognises the ASvP (does the DipOrth still exist)?

And even if practitioners are able to get the message across that they do have expertise beyond selling spectacles why would parents pay for an optometrist’s time when their child can get free reading support within the school day?

Sandra Neave,

Essex

Meeting needs in a retail environment

Comment and opinion — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 16:43:33 GMT

While I can see Ron Hamilton’s point (Letters 08.03.13) concerning Richard Pakey’s article (22.02.13), I believe his criticism is over the top. Does he seriously believe Mr Pakey’s (not so clever) selling techniques would embarrass a banker?

Most optometrists like him primarily see themselves as healthcare providers, but that does not immediately mean any form of selling or marketing techniques used to increase purchases need involve ripping people off.

All humans are driven by needs, not everything they desire is a necessity. There is a need to see clearly, but that can be satisfied by the most basic of appliances when a sight correction is required. Of course, many years ago, all that was available was a small number of frames fitted with glass lenses under the NHS. Thankfully nowadays, the patient/customer can make a choice between a range starting with an inexpensive pair of spectacles right up to a leading designer branded frame fitted with the most advanced lenses at a price only a banker can afford!

I find Mr Pakey’s articles and marketing advice somewhat basic and often to the point of patronising, but providing someone’s needs or indeed above necessity ‘demands/wants’ does not have to result in sacrificing your professionalism as a healthcare provider working in a retail environment.

David Levy

Radlett, Herts

C30745 module Professional Conduct part 2 Compliance

Confused — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 21:03:37 GMT

I am baffled! I failed this module by not getting 60% giving answers 1b, 2b, 3c, 4c, 5c, 6d. Something must be very wrong or the author is contradicting himself, one or the other!

Children’s eye care

Comment and opinion — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:01:39 GMT

Re: ‘Who’s minding the children?’ (01.03.13), while the College recognises that the fact that a quarter of children have never had a sight test may not be news for your readers or indeed our members, I think we are all in agreement that it is essential to use research like this effectively.

Our latest report on consumer attitudes to eye health was commissioned specifically to give us an updated set of statistics to use in our promotion of optometry. Indeed the news about parents’ attitudes to their children’s eye care and the importance of good eye health has already been picked up by several national and regional media outlets including The Sun, Mail Online, Sky Radio News and Magic 105.4 (London).

We are therefore pleased that as a result of this work, millions are now a step closer to understanding the importance of staying vigilant to changes in their children’s vision and getting any problems checked early.

This is just a small part of the work the College undertakes to raise the profile of optometrists and educate the public. We generate hundreds of articles in the mainstream media every year, although we agree more needs to be done.

Keeping eye health on the wider public health agenda, and improving understanding and access to better care is a key goal of the College, and one we’ll continue to actively pursue with the help of partners across the eye health sector.

Bryony Pawinska

Chief Executive, College of Optometrists