Revolution isn't ordinarily a phrase associated with optics but that is exactly what is needed in the customer care provided by retail opticians as the complaints culture takes hold.
This was the message delivered by David Burt, chairman of the Optical Consumer Complaints Service (OCCS), at its latest seminar to discuss the issue of complaints against registered opticians in the UK.
Driving that need for adjustment in the way retail opticians interact with customers isn't a failing in their current behaviour or because massive levels of complaints are being lodged. Amendment is needed because of cultural changes taking place among consumers and structural changes in the optical market.
In a rare piece of forward planning for an optical body, Burt said: 'We are looking ahead three years, these are radical changes.' The profession needed to ask why people were complaining and how those changing demands could be met. The public is re-evaluating the position it may have taken in the past. This is being driven by the explosion in no win, no fee offers from the legal profession and the hype provided in the media. People have an enhanced perception of what you can and can't complain about. This perception will drive complaints, he concluded.
The current level of complaints against optics is very low. Last year grievances fell slightly to just over 2,100 from 2,500 a year before. Despite this, more cases were opened by the Service, 1,007 compared with 990. Comparisons are not easily made due to changes in the way contacts to the OCCS are logged but the message is clear. Very few complaints make it to the OCCS and only half of those become a formal process. But this should not be taken as an excuse for inaction.
Categorising complaints is not so clear. Nearly a third of gripes stem from the spectacle prescription and 10 per cent each from multifocal lenses and dispensing. Most of the others come under a heading of miscellaneous.
What is clear are some areas of difficultly that have emerged, many of which are likely to become even more significant due to changes in the way the profession is evolving.
One area that does not show up in the OCCS figures is complaints against unregistered sellers on the internet. The growth in this sector is also related to other areas of difficulty which centre around the separation of sight testing and dispensing. When the examination is separated from spectacle sales problems begin.
If a problem arises it is much more difficult to establish where the fault lies if the exam has been conducted in one practice and the spectacles bought elsewhere. Commercial pressures have also led practitioners to become reluctant to issue written prescriptions to those not buying spectacles, something the law requires them to do immediately after the sight test. Conversely practitioners are coming under pressure to supply inter pupillary distances along with the prescription, a measurement which the optician is under no obligation to provide unless they are supplying spectacles.
Another big area for complaint is the whole issue of where the professional and commercial aspects of a visit to the optician begin and end. Complaints, often on behalf of the elderly, suggest undue suggestion is made to elderly people that new spectacles need to be bought.
David Shannon, chairman of the Association of Optometrists, said all of these boiled down to the funding issues within optometry and the need to load the cost of professional services on to the price of optical products. While it was generally concluded that solution of that particular problem was beyond the remit of the meeting, Graham Ackers, OCCS management committee member, suggested as the NHS was getting a cut-price service why would they want to change it. Richard Wilshin OCCS company secretary said this had been a problem since 1948 and would continue to be so until proper funding was achieved. The lack of political presence at the meeting was bemoaned by Burt, especially since Earl Howe, parliamentary under secretary of state for quality at the Department of Health, was due to address the meeting but had pulled out at the last moment.
David Alexander, optometrist and director of the OCCS management team, agreed the cross-subsidy would always be a problem. It was down to the optometrist to instil a high level of confidence, during the eye exam, so the patient would buy their spectacles at the practice. From the OCCS committee, Dr Ewan Page said tough economic conditions may have led to harder selling of products but good service would win out. 'A happy customer is a repeat customer.'
Consumer affairs expert and committee member, Lynn Gould, agreed. 'If you get quality of service then you don't get complaints.'
This was generally agreed, but Nikki King of Tesco Opticians' complaints department said complaints about its online optical service tended to be based on price rather than service.
All agreed that the benefits of regular eye examinations needed to be understood by the public and Burt suggested the profession was 'missing a play' by not getting this message across. 'There needs to be a more progressive approach to getting these messages out.'
Optician asked the chairman what the OCCS issued in terms of guidelines or advice for optical professionals to help them avoid complaints. Burt said it was not the OCCS's role to issue guidance or give advice, that was up to the professional bodies.
Sir Tony Garrett, general secretary of the Association of British Dispensing Opticians, said it was not for the Association to micro manage other people's businesses, while Bob Hughes, chief executive of the AOP, said that practices could operate as they saw fit, so long as their advertising was within Advertising Standards Authority rules.
Burt reiterated: 'This is a fantastic service which does not get a lot of complaints.' But he warned: 'We are looking at a customer service revolution.'
The Service points out that it is the legal right of the consumer to buy their spectacles from wherever they like. However, to illustrate the point, Burt used the example of a high street bank which has seen complaints rise by 80 per cent in the last three years. He also pointed to the BBC which has produced a 900-page guide for employees. Burt picked a gem from the guide. It suggested that if a caller to the Corporation used words such as idiot, useless or shambles, it may need to be considered as a complaint by staff.
The Service introduced new categories in April of this year to try and break out more detail but there are not clear pointers to problem areas of practice.