The Federation of Ophthalmic and Dispensing Opticians states: 'Dispensing opticians interpret a patient's visual and fitting requirements and translate the prescription into specifications and instructions for the optical manufacturer.' Dispensing opticians are not sales representatives, and yet the vast majority of patients perceive them as being just that.
I am coming to the end of a three-year course at Anglia Ruskin University and soon hope to be the proud recipient of a Diploma of Credit in Ophthalmic Dispensing and a fully-fledged member of the Association of British Dispensing Opticians. What a pity that my hard work learning about anatomy, pathology, pharmacology and visual optics, as well as ophthalmic lenses, aberrations, and optical dispensing, will not give me the recognition I feel I deserve.
Patients will continue to perceive me as being a mere salesperson out to make a profit and will be cynical of my advice on frames and lens choice.
I believe that patients do not realise just how important the role of a DO is. Frame and lens choice, coupled with taking accurate measurements, is critical to a patient achieving their best obtainable level of vision. In some cases, failure to dispense the correct lenses can be detrimental to a patient.
The decision to allow unqualified staff to dispense spectacles was very ill-informed and seems to negate the need for qualified DOs. The need for a DO's expertise and their necessary presence in an optometric practice need recognition by the public. This will be best achieved by changing the law to once again allow only fully qualified DOs to supply and fit spectacles.
It would seem that not only the public have a misguided view of a DO's abilities and job role, but also optics professionals themselves. People presenting to a practice with conditions such as subconjunctival haemorrhages often find themselves booked in to see an optometrist. This not only completely wastes the patient's time and causes them unnecessary concern, but wastes valuable testing time. A DO is fully qualified to identify this and many other external eye conditions and can refer the patient to the optometrist, a GP or even a hospital if necessary. Similarly, it is quite common for a patient to present and ask to see an optician for a discussion concerning their eyes or their vision.
Knowledge base
Generally, the public is unaware of the distinction between a DO and an ophthalmic optician (optometrist), but an 'optician' can be either and DOs can usually answer most patients' queries without the need to disturb a testing optometrist. Further, a DO will know when to call on an optometrist's expertise, just as an optometrist should know when to call on a DO's expertise.
Unfortunately, there seems to be a very naive belief among both the public and people within the optics profession that optometrists are somehow superior to dispensing opticians. This is simply not the case. Optometrists who previously qualified as DOs are the first to admit that the two courses are very similar. Naturally, to qualify as an optometrist, one has to learn a little more pathology and learn refraction techniques in more detail, but, similarly, to qualify as a DO, one has to have a much greater understanding of lens form and wave optics. The core subjects, however, are virtually identical. While this is true, I would not want a DO testing my eyes any more than I would want an optometrist dispensing my spectacles or developing a new microscope. Unfortunately, under current legislation, an optometrist can legally dispense spectacles and I feel this is irresponsible of the government to allow.
In terms of the qualifications gained, the government now recognises that the ABDO examinations are equivalent to a Batchelor of Science degree. Therefore, the perception that optometrists are in any way more qualified is unequivocally wrong. The two jobs are very different, each requiring their own set of skills and expertise.
Perhaps due to these incorrect perceptions, I often find that optometrists are regularly asked by both their colleagues and the public to make recommendations regarding lens choice. I am certain that recommending lenses is not in the remit of the optometrist and, indeed, often feel I can offer better solutions for patients, requiring me to exercise a great deal of tact in attempting to persuade a patient to opt for another lens. This is a hard feat when the majority of patients then consider you neglectful of their actual requirements and believe you are simply overselling to secure that sales bonus!
The job of an optometrist is to examine the health of a patient's eyes, to assess their vision and, if necessary, to provide a prescription. It is then the job of a DO to explain to a patient what is wrong with their eyes and, after discussing their lifestyle and exact visual and fitting requirements, to recommend and dispense appropriate frames with the appropriate corrective lenses made in the correct way. This can sometimes rely on a very good understanding of ocular anatomy and visual optics, as well as having a very specialised and expert knowledge of physics and geometry to be able to understand the many different lenses and their various forms.
I believe it is up to the government and the regulatory bodies to bring about changes so that DOs get the recognition and respect they deserve. ?