Over the number of years I have been involved in the optometric profession, there has been a regular cycle of adverse media reports, critical of the work of optical practices, optometrists and dispensing opticians. My impression is that every year, if not more frequently, a national newspaper, monthly publication or broadcast media features an investigation into optical issues such as the price of spectacles, availability of contact lenses or the accuracy of prescriptions.
This time it is Which?, a publication that has been a frequent reporter into optical practice, publishing a critical report based on research regarding the accuracy of optical prescriptions, alleging that almost half of prescriptions they looked at were ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’.
Even worse the research alleges some were even dangerous. Investigative journalism is of course the role of organisations such as Which? and in many ways their investigations are to be welcomed as they raise legitimate concerns into substandard practice and poor value for money which will educate and warn the public and lead to long term improvement.
Two thoughts occurred to me following reading the Which? research. Firstly, while acknowledging I don’t know the detail and the validity of the Which? findings, as a profession we should look at the substance of this research, learn from what is being said and consider how we address the issues raised. This would only be good governance on behalf of the profession.
Secondly, we have to also realise that we are more likely to see bad news, rather than good news stories, as this is what the media thrives on. Having said that, while I’m not expecting to see any headlines which say ‘Opticians are offering great service and excellent value for money’, it would be good to see some sort of balance in coverage. This raises the question, ‘how do we make sure, as a profession, we get positive media coverage?’
I get the impression that other professions, and I use dentistry as an example, have more success in managing the media. From time to time I see and hear media reports that highlights a dental issue and at the same time is a reminder to members of the public of the positive contribution dentistry makes to general health and wellbeing.
A recent example of this was a report regarding alarming dental decay in young children in the north-west. The impression was that dentists could be doing a great job to improve the situation if they were given resources in terms of time and money to better educate parents and they really have the health of the nation at heart. The dental profession even manages to position the difficulty of accessing a dentist through the National Health Service as not the fault of the dental profession, but a fault on behalf of the government and inadequate fees. How often have we seen media stories relating to a lack of vision screening in children and highlighting the role optical practices can play or the inequity of fees we receive for eye examinations?
The problem may lie in the fact that optical practices and those that work in them do an extremely good job and overall, taking into account the whole visit combining eye examination and spectacles, offer great value for money. Hardly the stuff of newspaper headlines. There will be no shortage of access to NHS services and so no public outcry of having to pay privately for health services, which in other professions is something they have used to attract the attention of the media in a positive way. For the optical industry the perceived high cost of spectacles is a point that is often raised, without the countering point put forward that this cross-subsidises the eye examination.
So we should expect some bad news from time to time, but it is frustrating that in between the bad news articles, we do not appear to create our own good news stories? While a large amount is spent through the commercial organisations advertising optical practice, my perception is that from a public point of view the attention is drawn to offers on the sale of spectacles. I acknowledge more recently there may have been a move to target health aspects of an eye examination, but it is still small in comparison.
Going back to dentistry, the point that we should learn is a co-ordinated approach from the profession to put its point of view forward pays dividends in positive public perception.
What I am less sure about is how the various optical organisations address this issue and work together to the common good.