Do you use the word distortion when discussing progressives?

[Happylady]

I have read that it isn't a good idea to use the word as it has a very negative image. Who wants distortion in their glasses?!

When I am helping a first time progressive lens wearer I usually draw a little picture of the lens (a circle with a hourglass in it and an eye) and explain how the lens works. I tell them it is not a bifocal and explain the difference.

I tell them the side vision, especially the lower part will not be as clear as the vision in the center. I tell them that is where the power in the distance area and the power in the near is blended so there is no line.

A couple people I work with do use the word distortion, I just don't think it is necessary.

What do you do? How do you explain it?

[chip anderson]

I even use the word aberration, honesty in advertizing you know.

I have heard "CEC lecturers" go to great lengths to avoid these words, subsituting stuff like "sand" "blended areas" etc. A spade is a spade.

Chip

[QDO1]

distortion is a miss-understood word - all lenses distort light - thats why we are using them.


I actually use the phrase "usefull area on the lenses" and "thats where the blended part of the lens is, by design your vision is not so good there, because the designer is using it to blend the power of the lens. The designer has however put the clearest parts of the lenses in the most useful places, and the blending in the least useful place"
If you point out the distorted part before the patient says anything, and explain it is supposed to be there, and actually show them where onthe lens it is, patients invariably nod, agree and move on positivley

[GOS_Queen]

distortion is a miss-understood word - all lenses distort light - thats why we are using them.


I actually use the phrase "usefull area on the lenses" and "thats where the blended part of the lens is, by design your vision is not so good there, because the designer is using it to blend the power of the lens. The designer has however put the clearest parts of the lenses in the most useful places, and the blending in the least useful place"
If you point out the distorted part before the patient says anything, and explain it is supposed to be there, and actually show them where onthe lens it is, patients invariably nod, agree and move on positivley

I say something very similiar (I highlighted in bold what I say) . I do like how you phrased this (underlined) :cheers: : I'll probably use that ... ;)

[Robert Wagner]

On a first time progressive patient I show them with a detailed picture of how the lenses work and explaine this lens system. I then tell them that once you and your eyes understand and learn the limits within the lens you should adapt and enjoy your new progressives,
I then go on to say that the manufactur's of the progressive lens wants me to say that "in the reading portion on the extream sides of the lens is what is called soft focus" I then say but in reality it is pure and simple blurr! Like Chip I beleive in truth and real expentations. I then show them a sample of a plaino with a +2.00 add so before the patient even orders a pair they know just what they are getting. I have so few non-adapts (only 1 this year) this seems to be working for me (and the patient).

When I dispense the new pair and again go over how they work, I always leave the patient with the option that if in "your" world the glasses are not working as well as you expectied, please call me, or, come back in, because I have been wearing mine for many years and I may be able to help you with some of your concernes, or we may need to get you a "special use pair of glasses".

Good luck,
Robert;)

[Chris Ryser]

I even use the word aberration, honesty in advertizing you know.
Chip

Darryl Meister corrected me........... by saying the distortion was not distortion but surface astigmatism

[chip anderson]

I have great respect for the Meister but I think "surface astigmatism" is another marketing term to avoid the word aberration.


Chip

[finklstiltskin]

I very seldomly use the word 'distortion,' but always explain to the patient that they will experience some image swim and blurring.

[shellrob]

Using the word distortion in my opinion is a very bad idea. I mean who wants to pay hundred of dollars for lenses only to be told that part of the lenses are going to be distorted? I feel the same way about the "drawings" of the lenses. I simply explain and instruct a patient. I'm honest about how they're going to see. I feel as though the key to helping the patient is explaining the lenses while you're selling the lenses not after they pick them up. If you explain how the lenses work prior to them picking them up, then they're not going to be in "shock" mode when the get them because you've already planted the seed on what to expect.

[QDO1]

use only words that your great aunt would understand

[Lynne]

I even use the word aberration, honesty in advertizing you know.

I have heard "CEC lecturers" go to great lengths to avoid these words, subsituting stuff like "sand" "blended areas" etc. A spade is a spade.

Chip

I demonstrate, and say "I have been wearing this type of lens for 18 years, and if I look here (straight ahead), I can get everything into focus by adjusting how I move my head. However, if I want to read this (their Rx), out here, (off to the side), then its just chicken scratch if I look through the side of my lenses, as that is where the changes in power take place, in order to get rid of the line. However, if my turn my head, and point my nose at it (do that), then it comes into sharp focus.

When they pick up I have them practice with the reading card, including moving the card out to the side.

Biggest help, panto tilt!!

[rbaker]

Reminds me of the real estate salesman who referred to the sump pumps in the cellar as the “hydrological recirculators.) What we sometimes go through to avoid calling a spade a spade. We should all be ashamed of ourselves and stop making excuses for design characteristics of the products and services we sell.

Hey, why not just refer to the distortion as a “new feature.” It works for Microsoft.

[Happylady]

I do a lot of the same things all of you do. I hold the reading card in front of them and then move it to the side. I then tell them to look right at the card and it will come into focus. I also explain that is is important to read through the bottom of the lens and not lower the head to read. People that used to wear just reading glasses often do that.

I also stress how important proper fit and adjustment is. I explain that if the glasses are crooked or not fitting right they will not work as well and to please come in for us to adjust them.
One of the reasons I dislike the word distortion is that it really doesn't fit. When I think of distortion I think of a fun house mirror. When I look through the sides of my progressives what I see doesn't seem distorted to me. It just seems blurry or not as clear.

[shellrob]

Sorry Rbaker but we should not be ashamed of ourselves doing what we're doing. People are very sensitive to simple words no matter how you mean them. Using the words we're choosing to use is only helping the patient so they will be more receptive to the lenses. Using the wrong words will only lead to numerous non-adapt remakes or refunds. Why not choose your words wisely to avoid those situations?

[Aarlan]

A spade is a spade.

Chip

I agree. Why sugar coat it? Giving the patient a realistic expectation is better than tiptoeing the issue. Trying to say it is "less clear" is being a little less than truthful...The periphery is useless and they should be prepared. our non adapt rate is non existent (1 so far this year), and that is has a direct correlation with the expectation we set. I can't remember the last time someone decided against a progressive because of the 'distortion' we warn them of.

We actually stress the issue and when the patient actually receive the lenses they are thrilled with the result. It is much better than when people expected the Varilux that Paul Harvey talks (talked?) about..."Far away, up close, and everything in between...Just Like Normal Vision!!". That kind of expectation is what kills us.

AA

[QDO1]

I agree. Why sugar coat it? Giving the patient a realistic expectation is better than tiptoeing the issue. Trying to say it is "less clear" is being a little less than truthful...The periphery is useless and they should be prepared. our non adapt rate is non existent (1 so far this year), and that is has a direct correlation with the expectation we set. I can't remember the last time someone decided against a progressive because of the 'distortion' we warn them of.

We actually stress the issue and when the patient actually receive the lenses they are thrilled with the result. It is much better than when people expected the Varilux that Paul Harvey talks (talked?) about..."Far away, up close, and everything in between...Just Like Normal Vision!!". That kind of expectation is what kills us.

AA

that is so wrong - the periphery is not useless, the lower periphery is distorted, and the ammount depends on the design and RX. If you demomstrate the limits and boundaries of the useful, and distorted (or progressivly less useful) parts of the lenses too patients the job is done. I give my patients exercises, that force them to adapt and even use the "distorted" parts of the lenses. As early presbyopes have low reading adds, the lower "distorted" part still may have useful function

[For-Life]

When you are selling PAL's you are not actually selling the lens, but yourself. If you can sell yourself then the patient will trust you. As Chip said, honesty, and honesty is a good way to sell yourself.

[Happylady]

In a low add progressive that many people start with the sides do not seem distorted to most people. They seem not as clear or perhaps blurry. This is calling a spade a spade. Why use negative words? I am not hiding anything from my patients.

I wear a +2.00 add and I DO use the side areas of my lenses. No, it isn't as clear, but I certainly can see through it and it is better then no correction at all. Of course, for someone with little or no distance correction the side areas might not be better then their natural vision.

[hcjilson]

"unwanted astigmatism" to describe the wave at the periphery of the reading and intermediate. I don't mind using the word distortion, but I define it when I use it. The term unwanted astigmatism is correct and it sounds a whole lot better than distortion,particularly when you tell the customer that it falls in area's not normally used for viewing. I also caution an adjustment period, similar to that they went through with lined bifocals.

hj

[shellrob]

I'm with you Happylady, I do not lie to my patients just because I choose to use words unlike "distorted". My patients are fully aware of what to expect from the lenses before they are even fitted. I too have a very very low non-adapt rate. I do not feel as though I'm sugar coating anything, I feel as though I am just using a more tactful way to explain to my patients what to expect from this lens.

[Jedi]

I can't recall ever having a problem calling it distortion. I think that word really illustrates how unusable that area really is. You know how the saying goes, under-promise, over deliver. You tell them that area is crap and when they put them on they think, "that isn't so bad."

[hcjilson]

I can't recall ever having a problem calling it distortion. I think that word really illustrates how unusable that area really is. You know how the saying goes, under-promise, over deliver. You tell them that area is crap and when they put them on they think, "that isn't so bad."

Thats because you're not old enough to have practiced with "distortion free" first quality glass lenses. :D It was really something to say back in the fifties! getting cold up there yet??

[Aarlan]

I You know how the saying goes, under-promise, over deliver. You tell them that area is crap and when they put them on they think, "that isn't so bad."

Precisely.

I am certainly not saying that if you refrain from using the word distortion you are lying. I am saying however that it is a word that is more easily understood by a layperson than "unwanted astigmatism" or some other phrase...few of our patients actually know what 'wanted' astigmatic correction is in the first place.

And except in the lower adds I still believe that the lower periphery is relatively useless. If you can eek a bit of functionality out of it, so much the better, but it was designed to be out of the way.

AA

[Chris Ryser]

We should all be ashamed of ourselves and stop making excuses for design characteristics of the products and services we sell.

Hey, why not just refer to the distortion as a “new feature.” It works for Microsoft.

I am fully with you rbaker, even a little further................when I see distorted dorways and crooked lines sideways through my PALS I can not get used to call this "surface astigmatism".

To me it is just plain distortion and you can find any socially acceptable name and excuse to call it something else.

Just tell your patients that they will have to give up some clear vision to have a bifocal that does not look like a bifocal, but makes them feel younger by not showing their age.

[Lynne]

Just tell your patients that they will have to give up some clear vision to have a bifocal that does not look like a bifocal, but makes them feel younger by not showing their age.

And gives them the intermediate, computer, store shelf, dash board etc! H..l of a lot better than FT's! :)