I normally read the Comments page in Optician with interest but today it was more with ironic amusement.
Who, I wonder, are 'some voices in Scotland wondering about the deregulation of refraction'.
None of these voices have been heard among the 700 optometrists who have passed through the competency events organised by The Scottish Committee of Optometrists and funded by the Scottish Executive Health Department.
Far from being a government plot, the new contract has been driven by a united profession through Optometry Scotland and supported throughout by a health department who understood that the workforce issues in ophthalmology could, in some measure, be addressed by the use of community optometry.
Optometrists have been trained for over 30 years to carry out eye exams but have been restricted by the NHS to carrying out 'sight tests'. Now we will have the freedom to examine, diagnose and manage patients on our own or in co-operation with GPs and hospital eye departments.
Optometry and the eye examination will no longer be seen as simply a route to spectacles but they will still remain the primary route through which spectacles are prescribed.
This is all part of a wider strategy of healthcare and preventative care in a patient centred service supported throughout by sensible funding. We have only just started down this road of change and innovation but at no point has refraction been downgraded, it is simply everything else optometrists can do is now part of our armoury within the NHS.
When 75 per cent of sight loss can be alleviated with spectacles, it is quite unreasonable to even suggest that unqualified people should do such a vital part of optometry's work. We firmly believe that the Scottish Executive Health Department are more enlightened and visionary than that.
The most important part of the new contract for Optometry in Scotland is promoting the New GOS eye examination as a health check and everything else is on top of that, not excluded or outside of that.
Refraction like dilated ophthalmoscopy or visual field assessments are essential parts of the examination but not mandatory for everyone. Optometrists with the guidance that has been given, can work to their potential and begin expanding the community service further.
This contract is a success story for the optometrists and their patients.
Considerable interest has been shown by health boards and ophthalmologists who are keen to redesign their services to fit in with the new role of optometry, there will be considerably more informed, productive and relevant interaction between ophthalmology and optometry.
This has to be of great benefit to our patients and the future direction of the eye care service that they will receive.
Hal Rollason
Chairman, Optometry Scotland
Moral high ground
I'm not quite sure what David Hollander was trying to imply in his letter (Optician March 24). I believe he's suggesting that all Specsavers Opticians will prescribe glasses that aren't really necessary and that this is how they generate their volumes.
I have been a Specsavers director for 10 years. I have not been in the business as long as Mr Hollander (only 21 years to his 30) but I have worked in every area of optics. He must be doing well if he's never before seen an example of unnecessary prescribing because I've seen quite a few, from both the independent sector and multiples (including Specsavers).
Surely we're all grown-up enough to know that there are good and bad professionals in every sector of every branch of healthcare, so I don't think its realistic to blame Specsavers for single-handedly prescribing every pair of unnecessary glasses in the UK.
In fact, our volumes are, indeed, so large that we don't need to prescribe unnecessary glasses. We're having problems keeping up with demand for the necessary ones!
He mentions that, 'Specsavers claim to be the biggest opticians in the country, voted "most trusted"'. Specsavers actually are the biggest opticians in the country. He also puts 'most trusted' in inverted commas as if in some sort of doubt.
Reader's Digest canvassed more than 2,000 people in the UK and Specsavers got 38 per cent of the vote, 24 per cent higher than our nearest rival Boots Opticians.
Let's not keep writing letters having a pop at the competition; after all, the moral high ground is often a bit shaky!
Daniel Harris
Hemel Hempstead
Wires crossed
Graham Hutchison (Letters, March 24) appears to have his wires crossed. His assertion is that 'I have finally decided to endorse the fightback campaign, an initiative he claims the Independent Marketing Partnership launched four months ago'.
In fact, my letter (March 10) made no mention of Mr Hutchison, his business, nor the suppliers that have chosen to support him. My letter was merely applauding the editorial comment I had assumed was written by an independently thinking journalist employed by Optician encouraging the independent sector to fight back.
Let me put the record straight. For some considerable years the Sight Care Group has offered independents an unparalleled range of business and marketing support services that have greatly benefited members, and may I add prospective members alike.
I am sure Mr Hutchison as a one-man-band has a role to play in the independent market, but I am confident if independents objectively compare what they get for their money from Mr Hutchison compared to Sight Care membership, irrespective of an initial six months free membership and free newsletters, they will conclude that there really isn't a contest.
A great deal of coverage has been given by Optician to Mr Hutchison's initiative and the number of practices he has enticed to sign up for free services. I wonder how many will want to continue with their membership post promotion? Perhaps he will keep us informed.
I apologise if I sound a little cynical, but Mr Hutchison and those companies that claim to be investing 100,000 to back membership of his business give the impression that their concern about the well-being of independents is both original and philanthropic.
The reality is the market has been tough. It has been difficult to attract members, to sell contact lenses, to sell frames and glazing services, and they are desperate to get as much publicity as they can in the hope that their fortunes will change.
As a ruse it may have grabbed headlines in the short-term, but let's see what the longer-term holds in store for them.
Reflecting, I really don't know why Mr Hutchison dragged me into this exchange.
Paul Surridge
Chief Executive, The Sight Care Group
What nonsense
I see a lot of talk about the independent sector collapsing as the larger groups get bigger. What a load of old nonsense. If independents are all going out of business and failing, why are there still so many of them around?
I see a strong future for the single-practice independent. It costs no more than some of the franchising options around and offers more freedom and choice to do things as you would like and not what a head office will tell you to do.
So when I read Chris Bennett's comment (Optical Recruitment), I was shocked at his lack of understanding and grasp of the facts about our profession.
In my opinion, independents compete very well with multiples. We should not allow all the slick PR browbeat us into thinking that the only way is large, it is not and never will be. Yes there are challenges and heaven forbid that any business stands still, life just is not like that and change is good.
Long live the single-minded professional, who really cares about their primary role, the patient/customer, not always the bottom line.
Tom Burleigh
Seaford, East Sussex
I normally read the Comments page in Optician with interest but today it was more with ironic amusement.
