Last week’s BBC Watchdog investigation into staff at Vision Express and Boots Opticians misleading patients about the effects of blue light could damage public confidence in not just blue light filtering products and more importantly, the profession.
Undercover reporters investigated five branches of each multiple, finding that there were six health claims reported across the 10 stores, which a panel of experts told the programme were not backed up with any evidence. Advice provided in some branches of Boots Optician was described as ‘frightening’ and one member of staff told the reporter that the dangerous blue light ‘killed’ retinal cells in the back of the eye.
The programme came just one year after the Advertising Standards Authority ruled that Boots exaggerated both the threat from blue light and the effectiveness of its lenses. Can the multiple afford to be in the dock for a third time?
Presenter Sophie Raworth discussed the health claims with Professor of Ophthalmology, Chris Hammond, who told the programme that there was no supporting evidence to back them up. Raworth also met with light expert Dr John O’Hagan, the author of a report for Public Health England to establish whether blue light from electronic devices was dangerous.
Dr O’Hagan said blue light was only dangerous if exposed to a far greater amount than what we would already get in daily life. He demonstrated this by measuring the intensity of blue light emitted from a smartphone and several other electronic devices. The result was less than 1% of the safe level.
Vision Express CEO Jonathan Lawson defended the multiple’s recommendations of blue light filtering lenses on the programme. Lawson was interviewed by Raworth and during a tetchy exchange over the independence of research into the subject, said evidence did exist to demonstrate the impact of blue light on vision.
‘These concerns really matter to us. We wholeheartedly stand by the advice we offer around blue light lenses as an optional upgrade to standard lenses, where a consultation with one of our expert optometrists identifies a customer has prolonged exposure to electronic screens such as tablets, computers and mobile phones,’ said Lawson.
Boots Opticians did not appear on the programme but said it welcomed the feedback on the visits made to some of its practices, and where it may not have given the correct advice, it would work with its staff so they could explain the benefits of Protect Plus Blue lenses more clearly.
Raworth’s claim that patients could be completely misled by dispensing opticians will strike at the heart of the profession and how it is perceived by the public. In describing the individuals recorded for the piece as dispensing opticians, a protected title and practitioners whose actions are regulated by the General Optical Council, the level of trust held by members of the public could well be impacted.
Claims like this were common in the opticians visited
It was a matter of ‘deep concern’ for the Association of British Dispensing Opticians. ‘There is absolutely no evidence that the persons filmed were dispensing opticians,’ said ABDO general secretary Tony Garrett.
‘Indeed it is clear most were certainly not DOs. We regard this issue as a serious one, but deplore the inaccurate statements about dispensing opticians made by the programme. We will be raising this with the BBC and programme makers.’
A spokesperson for the BBC refuted ABDO’s claims: ‘We can confirm that some of those who offered the incorrect advice during our investigation were dispensing opticians and we stand by our story as broadcast.’
Any damage in public perception is likely to be short-lived though, as research conducted by Comres for the GOC in 2015 showed public confidence in opticians was very high.
In the research, opticians were compared to GPs, dentists and pharmacists, and of these professions, the public were second most likely to say they were very or fairly confident of receiving high standards of care from opticians (92%), after pharmacists (94%). A further 96% said they were satisfied with their overall experience with opticians.
When looking at purchasing behaviour, the data reinforced the overall positive picture. Almost all (97%) who had purchased corrective appliances and could recall where they did so, said they were satisfied with their purchasing experience.
Among the minority who were not satisfied (3% of patients), the reasons given ranged from a poor quality product, an individual who was rude or unfriendly, that they felt pressured into spending, or they had bad or no advice on treatment options.
Patient trust
Optician reporter Jo Gallacher took to the high street this week to find out whether patients believe what they are told in optical practices following the BBC Watchdog findings
Train driver Michael Broom, pictured, was sceptical about special offers and preferred to make his own mind up on the final purchase of his spectacles.
He said: ‘I do feel sometimes when they are trying to put on a special offer I don’t trust them fully on that, or when they try to sell you varifocal lenses. When you have an eye test you go along and trust the optometrist, but what I tend to do now is take the prescription and shop around.’
Meanwhile, housewife Lorraine Kitchenside, pictured, has always trusted her practice due to its professionalism.
She said: ‘They have a medical background, and the knowledge and equipment to let me know if I’ve got something wrong with my eyes. When my sister had an eye complication, they sent her right to Moorfields to take a look.’
Some patients such as merchandiser Paul Hyams, pictured, believe practices always have their sales in mind.
He said: ‘They know more about my eyes than I do, but so often they do the service then add on the sales. A few years ago the service was more personal, they don’t go that extra mile anymore.’
Mum Chrissie Tilley, pictured, was left unimpressed with her local practice when she took her daughter for an eye test.
She said: ‘I don’t trust them as they were very unprofessional, I wasn’t taken to a private room to discuss my daughter’s prescription and I had to find a new store.’
Patient Michael Hooker told Optician that his practice has always been reassuring if he ever has a problem. He said: ‘I wear bifocals, and had problems getting the positioning right, and my optician was quite attentive to this.’
Finally, Retired Brixton resident Gloria Morris told Optician she had used the same practice for 20 years and had no reason to doubt the experts. She added: ‘They are very nice and pleasant people. We have to believe what they say because they are the experts, so you take it or leave it.’