Six months after Optician published the results of its mystery shopping among internet contact lens suppliers, Chris Bennett, Rory Brogan, Alison Ewbank, Shannon McKenzie and Emma White repeated the exercise to determine whether businesses are now complying with the law. Here’s what they found.
'Frankly horrific’ was how the General Optical Council described some of the responses to Optician’s first mystery shopper exercise among online contact lens suppliers, carried out in February and March this year (Buyer beware, April 28).
The survey found that while some companies were operating within the regulations introduced in June 2005, others agreed to supply lenses without an in-date specification or verifying the prescription with the prescribing practitioner.
This first mystery shopper exercise involved 120 calls to 16 online suppliers and tested 15 different scenarios, from switching brand or base curve to supplying for children under 16. In the scenario on ordering lenses without a prescription, four out of eight companies contacted were prepared to supply lenses based on prescription details read out over the telephone. Some suppliers were also offering consumers inappropriate or inaccurate advice on modality, wearing times, replacement schedules and care products, in some cases contrary to the licence for the product.
Multiple calls
In the follow-up exercise we concentrated on a single scenario – ordering lenses with no prescription – and targeted suppliers either based in the UK or with a UK mailing address. In an eight-week period from early September, we made a total of 65 calls to 19 online suppliers using the order lines given on their websites. We also included branches of two high-street multiples, Boots Opticians and Dollond & Aitchison, which do not offer lenses over the internet, and Daysoft, the contact lens manufacturer that sells direct to consumers.
In each case we asked whether contact lenses could be supplied based on prescription details read out from the lens box, using the following scenario and wording: ‘I wear contact lenses and want to order them from you from now on. I’ve got the box my last lenses came in with all the details, will that be OK?’
As an example, we said that we wore Focus Dailies lenses, the UK’s biggest selling lens type and available from all the websites we contacted (except daysoft.co.uk). Before making the calls we visited all the websites to check the lenses were stocked and what information the supplier asked for, as well as making sure that all suppliers had a UK mailing address. If asked, we said we did not have a copy of our prescription, bought our last supply of lenses from our optician three months ago and were reluctant to go back there again.
Of the 19 online suppliers contacted (see table), 15 would not sell us lenses without a valid specification or contacting the prescribing practitioner. None of the three supermarket suppliers – Tesco, Asda and Sainsburys – was prepared to supply lenses and the high-street opticians we contacted also refused. The Specsavers, Optical Express and Vision Express sites all told us a prescription was needed, as did Postoptics and other optical practice-based online sellers such as contactlensestoday.co.uk, contactlenssupplies.co.uk and onestopcontactlenses.co.uk.
In response to our enquiry, many companies pointed out that supplying lenses without a prescription was against the law or took time to explain the legislation, some saying that there had recently been a change in the requirements such that internet companies now had to verify prescriptions. Most were sympathetic that we were reluctant to return to our practitioner for a copy of the prescription and offered to contact the practice on our behalf.
Contact lens manufacturer Daysoft was among the suppliers that insisted on a prescription. Asked whether it would be OK to switch from Focus Dailies to Daysoft lenses, customer services told one caller that Daysoft 58 lenses would automatically be substituted for a four-day free trial. ‘If you don’t get on with them we may switch you to Daysoft 72 which some Focus Dailies wearers find more comfortable,’ she said.
Three of the online companies we contacted - contactlenses.co.uk, contactlenshop.com, and secondsightonline.co.uk - agreed to supply lenses from details read over the phone and one – contactsuniverse.co.uk – via email. In each of these cases we went ahead and ordered lenses, to test whether there were any further checking procedures before the product was dispatched.
Box details alone
Bristol-based contactlenses.co.uk told four of our callers they would supply lenses with only the box details. Although the customer services operative asked for the prescribing practitioner’s name, when we said we couldn’t remember we were told it didn’t matter. This was despite the fact that the company’s website says: ‘If you are a new customer you will need to tell us your optometrist and prescription details.’ The lenses ordered arrived by first-class post from Bristol the following day.
Thecontactlensshop.com, with an address in Worcester, refused to supply four of our mystery shoppers but agreed to sell lenses to one caller. Customer services asked this caller when they had last been seen by their optician but said no prescription was necessary. The lenses arrived from the Worcester address the next day.
Our calls to secondsightonline.co.uk produced an interesting result. This company, based in Kent, agreed to supply lenses to two out of four of our mystery shoppers, although its website states: ‘We can only process orders for contact lenses if we receive a copy of your recent contact lens specification.’
When one caller went ahead and ordered the company said that, by law, it needed to know the name of the prescribing practitioner. If the details did not ‘ring true’ they would contact the customer first by phone before calling the practitioner. ‘Ninety-nine per cent of the time opticians won’t supply the prescription. That’s why we don’t even bother,’ the customer services operative said.
When asked whether the lenses would arrive the next day, she went on to explain that they would either be mailed from the UK or sent directly from CIBA Vision in Germany. ‘It’s often much quicker from CIBA and it’s more convenient for us.’
She added that customers were often reassured that their lenses came direct from the manufacturer since it showed the lenses were ‘bona fide’. At these prices, some people ask whether the lenses are genuine, she said. The order arrived from Germany three days later, without any further contact from the company, and a return address of Points of View, an optical practice in Bromley.
The contactsuniverse.co.uk website gives a Bedford address for lens returns, although under the name Lens & More GmbH, and says it dispatches all orders ‘by Royal Mail, first class’. One of our mystery shoppers was able to order lenses from the company by email – no telephone number was available on the website. The lenses arrived four working days later by first-class Royal Mail, enclosing an invoice from the company address in Germany.
One other company, visiondirect.co.uk, whose website gives a freepost address in Bedford, said it would sell us lenses without a prescription but only if we ordered over the internet. However, like several other suppliers, the company’s advice was not consistent. One caller was told that since visiondirect.co.uk was based in the Netherlands no prescription was needed but that the company still required one.
So what did we learn from our second mystery shopper exercise?
While it is reassuring that most online suppliers are complying with the law on the sale and supply of contact lenses, some are clearly not. In this exercise we used one lens type as an example in order to test compliance with the principal requirement that lenses should only be supplied to a valid specification.
Rules are clear
Last week (News, November 3), the GOC clarified its interpretation of the law and advised suppliers to ensure that their procedures met the appropriate requirements. The GOC considers that the rules in relation to the requirements for a written specification and its verification are clear and says that where there is evidence of non-compliance formal action may be taken.
Our research suggests that action may well be necessary if measures introduced to safeguard patient safety continue to be ignored.