Unity, cohesion and speaking with one voice were the watchwords at a major meeting of Optical Confederation officers and members last week. But as Chris Bennett discovered, there are still big questions to be answered
To mark the occasion of the annual general meetings of the Federation of Ophthalmic and Dispensing Opticians and the Association of Optometrists, Optical Confederation members held an afternoon of presentations and discussions followed by a black tie dinner and dance.
Don Grocott, chairman of the OC, greeted delegates with the message that when united the optical profession and industry made a powerful force. He said the optical bodies enjoyed good relations and optics enjoyed good relations with other professions such as pharmacy and dentistry.
The highlight of the afternoon's events was a discussion forum taking questions from the floor, the panel being made up of presidents and chairmen of the ABDO, ACLM, AOP, FMO and FODO.
In response to a question about priorities for the coming year, ABDO president Peter Black said times had been tough for the optical sector and new ways had to be used to get the whole of the population to have their eyes examined regularly. He said the volume of eye tests should be closer to 30 million than the current 20 million. ABDO was committed, he added, to education and areas such as low vision and school screening. 'We are seeing great changes to the way eye care is being delivered.' He went on to say that refraction rights for DOs should be 'on the table'.
Cameron Hudson for the ACLM said his organisation wanted to help practitioners in practical ways. 'Our role is about elevating contact lenses and the profile of contact lenses. We want to create a landscape which allows growth.' Practical actions the ACLM could take were tackling illegal contact lens sales and helping practices retain patients. Roadshows around the country were aimed at supporting practices to do this, he said.
David Shannon for the AOP said creating a positive environment was also something it intended to focus on (see page 5). 'We have got to be growing the market and come up with an environment that is conducive.'
A questioner asked if too much pressure was being placed on individual practitioners over test times and conversion rates.
'We have got to make a profit,' said Black, adding that the loss of optometric services was a reality in some poor areas. He blamed the optical business model for pushing up the price of products to subsidise professional services.
Jayne Rawlinson for FODO agreed with Black's points, adding that in all areas of medical care efficiency was measured. 'We need to tackle under-performance. It's a great notion to think that a practitioner should decide how long an eye exam should take.' But she said benchmarking and averages needed to be established.
To put the pressure optometrists were under into perspective, Black recalled that in the last days of universal eye tests he was aware of an optometrist who conducted 57 eye exams per day. Back then 21 tests a day was typical, today that is 13 or 14. The productivity of the sector has decreased and conversion rates had dropped, he said.
The questioner was unimpressed responding: 'Do you think we are naive or stupid?' She said her work as a clinical adviser led her to conclude that poor record-keeping was often linked to the time allowed for eye tests and the expected conversion rate. 'It comes down to the pressure being put on the optometrist.' She wanted to know how the optical bodies could get patients to come into practice in greater numbers.
Alan Tinger said a lot of the work being carried out by LOCSU was about expanding the scope of practice and taking advantage of new opportunities such as being able to offer services under the any qualified provider programme.
Another query from the floor asked Black how he reconciled DOs refracting with public health when 50 per cent of sight loss was not linked to refractive error. Black said there would have to be rules surrounding the frequency of the full eye exam but the availability of refraction would allow people to buy glasses and may result in a referral for a full eye exam.
The next delegate brought the discussion back to support for independent practices and suggested an umbrella organisation to support independents. 'Are we offering enough help?' he asked. Shannon spoke for the AOP which was leading this issue for the OC. He said there had been a decline in the independent sector and the problem was clear. Protecting the independent sector was about choice for patients and choice of employment prospects for practitioners. He concluded that there wasn't a magic bullet.
From the floor, David Hewlett, chief executive of FODO, cautioned against segregation of one sector over another.
John Conway, chairman of the FMO, said the industry was trying to help by providing the products practices needed to differentiate themselves. Without help the independent sector would diminish. Doing nothing was not an option, he added.
Tinger said optics was the same as other retail sectors with chains at one end and boutique suppliers at the other. 'The middle has gone,' he said.
Hudson said the contact lens industry was going through an exciting time with products for children and older wearers offering big business opportunities. Often the best support for independents was to get them in a room together talking so they could support one another.
Other comments from the audience suggested a workplace study to quantify the threats facing the profession. One speaker suggested it was 'a little bit flippant' the way the sector's decline was being discussed but all of the current evidence was anecdotal.
Speaking from the floor, David Samuel, chairman of Sight Care, pointed out that Sight Care was set up by the AOP 25 years ago to support independents and suggested its remit could be widened to support the sector.