The Which? Report 'Testing the testers' was published last week. It stated that '17 out of a sample of 39 examinations conducted (through the UK), were considered poor or very poor - largely due to missing out important tests' 14 test were less than 20 minutes with two being 10 minutes 27 tests failed to check OMB 10 failed to enquire about headaches and six omitted questions on family history four 'patients' had to ask for their prescriptions and 11 were not advised of their next due date, etc.
As no specific opticians were mentioned, the whole profession will be tarred with the same brush, despite complaints to the GOC falling and the report occurring in the same week as the announcement that the profession is to get independent prescriber rights. The research protocol can easily be discredited, but that would only be seen as a kind of 'David versus Goliath' and no one else will really be prepared to listen.
It sticks in my throat that the profession can be so shabbily treated without the opportunity for a similar degree of response. For example, I know that having optometry students effectively examine their qualified colleagues is paradoxical. I know that Scotland is different and I know we are professionals exercising our professional judgement, but once again who will listen? I know our representative bodies will do their utmost to chip away at the DoH to try to get us a better deal, and the College will do its best to raise our clinical profile. However, in the meantime we must all remain vigilant and help our patients to understand the true value of the eye examination.
The tabloids by and large left this story alone, largely because of the anonymity of the opticians involved. But have no doubt, this survey will be repeated again in time by Which? and much closer to home as the local media attempt to repeat it.
On the matter of small surveys, I have to report the outcome of one carried out by a small group of optometrists I know. Contact lenses (Focus Dailies - all Day Comfort) were ordered from a range of online suppliers. Two issued three months' worth of lenses without asking to see the specification and without validating it with the practice name supplied. Four others (one supermarket, two online-only suppliers and a multiple) all requested to see the specification, but didn't attempt to verify it, and supplied three months of lenses, despite there only being less than two months' life on the specification.
Finally, two others (both supermarkets), having requested the specification, refused to supply as they could not verify the details with the practice and because there was less than two months' life left on the specification (standard policy is a minimum of three months' supply of this daily lens type).
While happy to receive criticism of the survey protocol, the results are indicative of an industry-wide, flagrant disregard of the law and the need for patient safety.
I am happy to hand over the survey results (including names) to Optician who may then wish to consider repeating their own survey. However, I am more concerned to see if anything will come of this information should it be supplied to the GOC. I would invite you to try this out for yourselves.
While on the subject of online supply of contact lenses, have a look at Asda's home webpage. In the words of a popular song, 'I predict a riot'.