NCLE Course Approval

[Roy R. Ferguson]

In discussions with numerous visually impaired individuals I was shocked to find that none of the three O’s provided any information as to what actions to take once they were totally blind. The ophthalmic fields attitude seemed to be summed up by one person who said in effect, “the profession lost interest once the money flow ended.” To address this painful lack of knowledge I developed, in conjunction with Leader Dogs for the Blind, a presentation to make this field aware of an option for these people. Today I received notification the NCLE had disapproved the course because “Only portions of course are related to task analysis. Too much emphasis on Dogs; not enough on low-vision patient.”

OPTIONS FOR THE VISUALLY IMPAIRED

INSTRUCTOR: Roy R. Ferguson, Ph.D.

OBJECTIVES:

Once an eyecare professional has exhausted all avenues of sight restoration and prevention of blindness, they are often questioned as to what steps may be taken to increase mobility of the visually impaired. One option is the use of a dog guide such as those provided by Leader Dogs for the Blind located in Rochester, Michigan. Leader Dogs for the Blind was founded in 1938 by a group of Michigan Lions. Their goal was to train dogs to lead the blind and to provide facilities and means whereby trained dogs could be matched to a blind master. To date, Leader Dogs for the Blind has placed over twelve thousand teams throughout the United States, Canada, and 30 foreign countries.

People who are legally blind, 18 years of age or over, in good health, emotionally stable and of good moral character may be eligible for Leader Dog training. Students live under the supervision of competent instructors during a four-week training period. Training is perceived as an emotional and physical re-education to a new way of effective living.

Leader Dogs for the Blind is supported by contributions from the public-Lions, Lioness and Leo Clubs; sororities; various public-supported agencies and private individuals. There is no charge for a Leader Dog or any part of the four-week training program. The cost of placing a team in the field is approximately $17,000 – $24,000.

LEARNING OUTCOMES:

Upon completion of this course the participant should be able to:

A. recognize limitations of prescriptions for visual improvement and recommend alternatives that may enhance a specific visual function;
B. describe how a Leader Dog is trained and placed with the visually impaired;
C. communicate to interested persons the steps in obtaining a Leader Dog
and where to obtain an application;
D. discuss the role of the Puppy Raiser in the training process;
E. outline who is eligible for a Leader Dog.

COURSE DESCRIPTION:

This one-hour, Level I, Technical course assumes the participant has little or no prior knowledge of the material being presented. This course relates directly to the test specifications for the National Opticianry Competency Examination Domain 10.00, Task 10.01, 10.03 and Domain 20.00, Task 20.01, 20.08, 20.09; and the ABO Advanced Certification Examination which requires the optician to “demonstrate product performance and applicability by providing education to the customer/patient to meet their needs and wants,” “promote awareness of goods and services,” and “deliver complimentary services to the community.” Additionally, topics from this course relate directly to the test specifications for the Contact Lens Registry Examination Domain 10.00, Task 10.01; and the NCLE Advanced Certification Examination that requires contact lens technicians to “serve as an expert resource and educator…” “promote awareness of goods and services,” and “deliver complimentary services to the community.” This course is intended to be generic in nature and will be presented in an objective manner.

[hcjilson]

Dr Ferguson,

With all due respect to NCLE- to whom did NCLE think the course was to be given? To the Dogs or to the vision professional charged with providing care to the visually impaired!

Who ARE these people?

Please feel free to quote my response in your reply to them.
Harry C Jilson

[Joann Raytar]

Dr. Ferguson,

That is an excellent course topic!

Why wouldn't NCLE approve a course that covers such an important subject matter? Today, the public is more aware than ever that there are tools available to them that will solve accessability problems and improve the quality of their lives. The public will have many questions about what is available and where that assistance can be found.

Eyecare Professionals should be able to advise their patients on the various theraputic devices that will assist them or refer those patients to caregivers at the next level of treatment. To be able to do this effectively, professionals need to be educated on various devices, resources and treatments.

[Steve Machol]

I agree that this is a deserving course which should not have been rejected. I hope you appeal this decision.

[Roy R. Ferguson]

Hi All:

When I found that most referrals for dog guides came from social services, and not the ophthalmic professions, I set out to make a course available that would make them aware of this option. Since the Advanced Certification Examination requires contact lens technicians to “serve as an expert resource and educator…” “promote awareness of goods and services,” and “deliver complimentary services to the community,” a course pertaining to this topic seemed to be a logical fit. Apparently, the NCLE has determined that contact lens technicians are best kept ignorant about this matter.

As far as appealing the decision, it’s been my experience that the procedure is a waste of time. Besides, the new rule is that you have to wait six months to appeal the disapproval.

It’s frustrating to develop in-depth and challenging courses that adhere to the ABO/NCLE guidelines, then have them disapproved for the most vacuous of reasons. The up side is that in the near future we’ll probably see a new course relating to dog guides presented by another speaker. I wish them the best of luck. It’s a topic this field needs more information about.

Roy

[chip anderson]

Roy:

Surely you have realized by now what is wanted is shallow meaningless sales pitches with no depth and lots of claims that time proves to be less than fullfilled.

Go forth and do something useless! But politicly acceptable!

Chip

[Roy R. Ferguson]

Hi Chip:

You’re right about the shallow part of course approval. Over the past several years many of the courses disapproved by ABO/NCLE have been college-level topics that I’ve adopted for CE purposes. It appears this group has lost sight of the meaning of “continuing education.” In my definition, continuing education assumes you currently possess a body of knowledge and are there to gain additional information to expand your abilities. The most recent courses disapproved by this body stated, “course content does not specifically related to task analysis.” In other words the material is not tested on the basis ABO or NCLE exam. It would appear speakers are asked to create CE hours that present topics ranging over information already studied and tested.

Roy

[Excel-Lentes]

Hi Roy,

I just thought you would like to know that on 12/5, at the CT opticians association holiday meeting, we were treated to a presentation from the Fidelco Guide Dogs Executive Director.
We learned all about the usage, training and care of guide dogs for the visually impaired.

This course was approved for 1 hour of ce by the ABO!!!!!!!!!!!!!


It was also one of the most interesting and inspiring ce's I have attended in years. I am very sympathetic with your frustrations that the NCLE did not approve your course. Maybe you could run it through the ABO instead and get it approved.

I agree that services for the blind and visually impaired are not widely understood or recommended by many opticians. This type of course would be quite useful to ophthalmic dispensers, especially those working in ophthalmology groups.

:finger: I am afraid the ABO/NCLE is not right in this matter and should reconsider. This type of course is a beacon of light in a fog of "sales" -type ce's.

-Brendan Walsh

[stephanie]

This is a definate outrage, Roy!! What is going on with the board? You are a great speaker and I feel what they are doing to you is unfair. It is unfair to us as well as well as the visually impaired that we help on a regular basis. I agree that most of us the idea never even crosses our minds. It is now something I do think about since you informed me of it. Maybe next year we can have an 8 hour course on how to sell ARC instead of helping the blind. Isn't there a way we could band together and sign a petition?


Steph

[Roy R. Ferguson]

Hi Stephanie:

There's really nothing that can be done about the ABO/NCLE approval process. In my humble opinion the system has simply broken down after years of recycling the same people in the same positions.

This is not my first course that has been disapproved. In the past I've questioned the Boards and have never received a reply. This is the first time I've taken the problem public. The bottom line is that while 50 or so folks may read about this on-line most opticians will never have a clue.

Roy

[hcjilson]

Roy,

The only thing that gives ABO/NCLE legitimacy is the acceptance of the State Boards of Registration.
If this were happening to me, I would present my course outlines directly to the licensing states for approval.We (MA) approve acceptable courses routinely after a review (obviously) and without regard to ABO/NCLE approval.What this would in effect do, is to allow you to offer courses at the state level, very similarly to what OTI does.Once you have the approval of the licensing states what can ABO possibly say?Who would care if they approved it or not? I am sure VCA could work you into the expo's as well.Just because you play ball doesn't mean that you have to play in their
park. If you did this.....I don't think it would be too long before either they come around, or their speaker base did exactly the same thing, further weakening their position of influence.WE gave them the authority....and we can take it away as well.

The view from here today from a cape codger named harry j.

[OpticalTraining]

Continuing education courses are meant to enhance the day-to-day knowledge of people working in the professional. While your course seems interesting, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the function of a contact lens fitter or technician. Hate to throw cold water on your outrage, but I think the Board was right to disapprove this course.

However, I think that your point is a good one -- ophthalmic professionals should be aware of this resource. If you were to develop a course covering ALL of the resources, the Board would likely find it to be of value.

[chip anderson]

Will we ever see another course through OAA that tells about different nose/ear shapes and the different frame styles for this. Such as the use of saddle/keyhole, etc. bridges. Different temples and weights to ballance lenses?

Will we ever see a course on frame repair, welding, soldering, coloring?

Chip

[Roy R. Ferguson]

I would question whether of not “continuing education courses are meant to enhance the day-to-day knowledge of people working in the professional (sic).” Continuing education should not be expected to provide the basic day-to-day knowledge that should have been acquired in an educational environment. CE should provide additional topics to build on that knowledge base.

According to the test specifications for the Contact Lens Registry Examination, the content areas include; Prefit, Preparation, and Evaluation (24%), Determining Lens Type and Design Contact Lens Parameters (19%), Patient/Customer Instruction and Delivery Procedures (34%), Follow-up Visits with Patient/Customer (23%). If all NCLE continuing education were limited to these areas it would appear that variations on the same information would be repeated on an endless loop. That would mean that topics such as Practice Management could never be approved for contact lens fitters. Is this what you are advocating?

Roy

[chip anderson]

Roy:

If your last post is directed to me, No! I am not advocating all courses be so directed, but I defintely would like to see more meat-and-potatoes courses. These provide essentials for the new and un-trained and reminder pearls for us old folks that have either forgotten things or assumed that we know and remember everything.

Example: I worked with three men when I first got into retail optical endevors who had fifty+, 40+ & 40+ years of experience in the field. These were my mentors/instructors. No one showed me how to shorten/lengthen a temple (and I was too dumb to figure it out myself) until an non-dispensing detail man showed me at least 5 years after I was a "dispenser."

Now lots of good stuff can be aquired by being shown one time and then practicing, but we all need help even with the essentials now and then.

Chip

[Steve Machol]

chip anderson said:
Roy:

If your last post is directed to me, No!

I believe Roy was responding to OpticalTraining's post. :)

[Roy R. Ferguson]

Hi Chip:

Steve was correct. I was responding to OpticalTraining.

Please keep in mind that there is a difference between educational courses/training sessions and continuing education. I agree that we need more in-depth educational courses to make up for the miserable "apprenticeship training" that is currently being used in the field.

Roy

[hcjilson]

In light of Optical Training's statement

However, I think that your point is a good one -- ophthalmic professionals should be aware of this resource. If
you were to develop a course covering ALL of the resources, the Board would likely find it to be of value.

and, the amount of resources currently available to the visually impaired, I was just wondering how long that course might be.My guess is that you might be able to scratch the surface in 20 CE hours or so.

Can it be that the visually impaired don't wear contact lenses? Can it be that the only acceptable education allowed for Contact Lens fitters is what they encounter day to day? I think not.Kind of makes you wonder......doesn't it?
hj