Litigation and the practitioner 3

Clinical Practice
Bill Harvey and Dr Nizar Hirji discuss the last in our series of interactive CET exercises centred around litigation and the eye care practitioner (C-61613)

The last of our exercises relating to legal issues in the modern workplace focused upon an area of some debate. Namely, does the inclusion of a minor addition in a bid to offer some support to accommodation in order to alleviate symptoms related to near work constitute a part of a prescription. And might their recommendation outside the test room mask any other causes of symptoms, such as decompensation of a near exophoria, something that an addition might in fact exacerbate.

The case

An optometrist at your place of work (not part of an NHS hospital), has prescribed for Mrs Joan Fernandez a 31-year-old bursar at a local private school, who attended with asthenopic symptoms and occasional diplopia at near when tired, the following spectacle Rx for her to wear generally and particularly at work where she used computers extensively:

RE -0.75/-0.25 x180 (6/5 N5)

LE -0.75/-0.25 x180 (6/5 N5)

Subscribe for full access to this content

Thank you for visiting Optician. To read more of our content, including the latest news, analysis and interactive CPD modules, start your subscription from just £21.75.

Flexible subscriptions to suit you

From £21.75 GBP