Happy birthday

n It seems to have passed most of us by, but I wanted to mark an interesting landmark in the history of contact lenses, that coincided with last weekend's BCLA Conference.
It is five years now since I, on behalf of Bausch & Lomb, launched PureVision, the first silicone hydrogel contact lens, into the UK market.
In an interesting quirk of fate, last weekend saw the launch of only the third product in this category with Johnson & Johnson Vision Care's launch of its silicone hydrogel, Acuvue Advance. I am personally looking forward to the launch of this product and hope that it really helps to finally kick-start the use of silicone hydrogel lenses in the UK.
Those who know me understand how passionate I am about the potential for the use of these lenses and consequently there is a word in this sentence that saddens and frustrates me.
Why after five years am I still talking about the 'potential' of these lenses? Probably for the same reason that many practitioners still think of them as a new and developing product.
It is not my intention to discuss the daily versus continuous wear debate and many already know where I stand on that issue. The fact of the matter is that for five years we have had access to lenses that virtually eliminate hypoxia, the primary contact lens complication and a significant contributing factor in many others Ð yet only 5 per cent of patients are currently fitted with them.
When one considers the march of daily disposable lenses (made, by the way, from material technology that dates back 30 years) from their first availability, one cannot help but wonder why a highly sophisticated product that is in another stratosphere in terms of ocular health, cosmesis and patient comfort, has fundamentally failed to achieve its potential as well as its manufacturers' sales forecasts and academics' predictions?
Why do we continue with potentially clinically negligent practice by only offering low Dk lenses, which leave all patients with a higher grade of bulbar conjunctival redness and many reporting symptoms of dryness/grittiness/soreness by the end of the day?
While silicone hydrogel lenses are not a panacea to all our contact lens problems, they are currently, along with RGPs (another interesting debate), the best products we have and yet the fitting of both is very much in the minority.
Let's hope that with B&L's new repositioning of PureVision (and the release later in the year of the PureVision Toric), as well as the entry of the mighty J&J into the arena will stimulate practitioners, in an increasingly litigious society, to do what is in both their and their patients' best interests.
So, happy birthday PureVision. Let's hope that you and your siblings are just late developers and do not grow up to be problem children.
Nick Atkins
Waterlooville, Hampshire
Superior service
n I wonder if some reaction to the news item 'Higher fees can enhance quality image' (News, May 7) was similar to mine? Utter amazement!
The old adage that 'you can fool some people most of the time, and most people some of the time, but you can't fool most of the people most of the time' came to mind. If a practice wants to charge more, then it should be seen to be providing more, or better.
If you want or need to charge more for the examination fee, why not do so because you are actually offering a superior acuity test for patients?
For example, a quality electronic test chart, with its many additional tests, has made the 'light box' on the wall obsolete, as many practices have already discovered. The patient should get a superior test, which can be reflected in the fee charged. Don't let us have a 'wringing of hands' about falling average dispense values and dispensing rates.
Those forward-thinking practices which routinely use a good video dispensing system to help all their patients, not just those with poor eyesight, to choose quality frames and lenses may not agree that nothing can be done about this.
David Olley
Vision Control (UK)
Visual fields testing
n I shared Mr Slater's interest in a recent case of an optometrist who failed to perform a visual fields examination on a patient aged 40 (Letters, April 30).
One is forced to conclude that the General Optical Council does not regard this investigation as part of a routine eye examination. I presume, therefore, as a profession we would be well within our rights to make a further charge for visual field examinations when indicated.
Chris Kerr
CroydonHappy birthday
PureVision
n It seems to have passed most of us by, but I wanted to mark an interesting landmark in the history of contact lenses, that coincided with last weekend's BCLA Conference.
It is five years now since I, on behalf of Bausch & Lomb, launched PureVision, the first silicone hydrogel contact lens, into the UK market.
In an interesting quirk of fate, last weekend saw the launch of only the third product in this category with Johnson & Johnson Vision Care's launch of its silicone hydrogel, Acuvue Advance. I am personally looking forward to the launch of this product and hope that it really helps to finally kick-start the use of silicone hydrogel lenses in the UK.
Those who know me understand how passionate I am about the potential for the use of these lenses and consequently there is a word in this sentence that saddens and frustrates me.
Why after five years am I still talking about the 'potential' of these lenses? Probably for the same reason that many practitioners still think of them as a new and developing product.
It is not my intention to discuss the daily versus continuous wear debate and many already know where I stand on that issue. The fact of the matter is that for five years we have had access to lenses that virtually eliminate hypoxia, the primary contact lens complication and a significant contributing factor in many others Ð yet only 5 per cent of patients are currently fitted with them.
When one considers the march of daily disposable lenses (made, by the way, from material technology that dates back 30 years) from their first availability, one cannot help but wonder why a highly sophisticated product that is in another stratosphere in terms of ocular health, cosmesis and patient comfort, has fundamentally failed to achieve its potential as well as its manufacturers' sales forecasts and academics' predictions?
Why do we continue with potentially clinically negligent practice by only offering low Dk lenses, which leave all patients with a higher grade of bulbar conjunctival redness and many reporting symptoms of dryness/grittiness/soreness by the end of the day?
While silicone hydrogel lenses are not a panacea to all our contact lens problems, they are currently, along with RGPs (another interesting debate), the best products we have and yet the fitting of both is very much in the minority.
Let's hope that with B&L's new repositioning of PureVision (and the release later in the year of the PureVision Toric), as well as the entry of the mighty J&J into the arena will stimulate practitioners, in an increasingly litigious society, to do what is in both their and their patients' best interests.
So, happy birthday PureVision. Let's hope that you and your siblings are just late developers and do not grow up to be problem children.
Nick Atkins
Waterlooville, Hampshire
Superior service
n I wonder if some reaction to the news item 'Higher fees can enhance quality image' (News, May 7) was similar to mine? Utter amazement!
The old adage that 'you can fool some people most of the time, and most people some of the time, but you can't fool most of the people most of the time' came to mind. If a practice wants to charge more, then it should be seen to be providing more, or better.
If you want or need to charge more for the examination fee, why not do so because you are actually offering a superior acuity test for patients?
For example, a quality electronic test chart, with its many additional tests, has made the 'light box' on the wall obsolete, as many practices have already discovered. The patient should get a superior test, which can be reflected in the fee charged. Don't let us have a 'wringing of hands' about falling average dispense values and dispensing rates.
Those forward-thinking practices which routinely use a good video dispensing system to help all their patients, not just those with poor eyesight, to choose quality frames and lenses may not agree that nothing can be done about this.
David Olley
Vision Control (UK)
Visual fields testing
n I shared Mr Slater's interest in a recent case of an optometrist who failed to perform a visual fields examination on a patient aged 40 (Letters, April 30).
One is forced to conclude that the General Optical Council does not regard this investigation as part of a routine eye examination. I presume, therefore, as a profession we would be well within our rights to make a further charge for visual field examinations when indicated.
Chris Kerr
CroydonHappy birthday
PureVision
n It seems to have passed most of us by, but I wanted to mark an interesting landmark in the history of contact lenses, that coincided with last weekend's BCLA Conference.
It is five years now since I, on behalf of Bausch & Lomb, launched PureVision, the first silicone hydrogel contact lens, into the UK market.
In an interesting quirk of fate, last weekend saw the launch of only the third product in this category with Johnson & Johnson Vision Care's launch of its silicone hydrogel, Acuvue Advance. I am personally looking forward to the launch of this product and hope that it really helps to finally kick-start the use of silicone hydrogel lenses in the UK.
Those who know me understand how passionate I am about the potential for the use of these lenses and consequently there is a word in this sentence that saddens and frustrates me.
Why after five years am I still talking about the 'potential' of these lenses? Probably for the same reason that many practitioners still think of them as a new and developing product.
It is not my intention to discuss the daily versus continuous wear debate and many already know where I stand on that issue. The fact of the matter is that for five years we have had access to lenses that virtually eliminate hypoxia, the primary contact lens complication and a significant contributing factor in many others Ð yet only 5 per cent of patients are currently fitted with them.
When one considers the march of daily disposable lenses (made, by the way, from material technology that dates back 30 years) from their first availability, one cannot help but wonder why a highly sophisticated product that is in another stratosphere in terms of ocular health, cosmesis and patient comfort, has fundamentally failed to achieve its potential as well as its manufacturers' sales forecasts and academics' predictions?
Why do we continue with potentially clinically negligent practice by only offering low Dk lenses, which leave all patients with a higher grade of bulbar conjunctival redness and many reporting symptoms of dryness/grittiness/soreness by the end of the day?
While silicone hydrogel lenses are not a panacea to all our contact lens problems, they are currently, along with RGPs (another interesting debate), the best products we have and yet the fitting of both is very much in the minority.
Let's hope that with B&L's new repositioning of PureVision (and the release later in the year of the PureVision Toric), as well as the entry of the mighty J&J into the arena will stimulate practitioners, in an increasingly litigious society, to do what is in both their and their patients' best interests.
So, happy birthday PureVision. Let's hope that you and your siblings are just late developers and do not grow up to be problem children.
Nick Atkins
Waterlooville, Hampshire
Superior service
n I wonder if some reaction to the news item 'Higher fees can enhance quality image' (News, May 7) was similar to mine? Utter amazement!
The old adage that 'you can fool some people most of the time, and most people some of the time, but you can't fool most of the people most of the time' came to mind. If a practice wants to charge more, then it should be seen to be providing more, or better.
If you want or need to charge more for the examination fee, why not do so because you are actually offering a superior acuity test for patients?
For example, a quality electronic test chart, with its many additional tests, has made the 'light box' on the wall obsolete, as many practices have already discovered. The patient should get a superior test, which can be reflected in the fee charged. Don't let us have a 'wringing of hands' about falling average dispense values and dispensing rates.
Those forward-thinking practices which routinely use a good video dispensing system to help all their patients, not just those with poor eyesight, to choose quality frames and lenses may not agree that nothing can be done about this.
David Olley
Vision Control (UK)
Visual fields testing
n I shared Mr Slater's interest in a recent case of an optometrist who failed to perform a visual fields examination on a patient aged 40 (Letters, April 30).
One is forced to conclude that the General Optical Council does not regard this investigation as part of a routine eye examination. I presume, therefore, as a profession we would be well within our rights to make a further charge for visual field examinations when indicated.
Chris Kerr
Croydon