Is Opticianry dead?

[Fezz]

Due to recent events in my personal life and following a few of the threads on here, is Opticianry dead?


It's obvious that the climate that we practice has drastically changed. It is more and more a retail environment. In a true retail environment, sales drives everything.

Look around at the big chains. Retail, retail, retail. They have dumbed down the business to nothing more than the next sale. They hire people to sell, not to figure the rx for a wrap sunglass, trouble shoot a progressive or to know the difference between a Walach(sp?) lens and a Acuvue contact lens. There are some Diamonds(Harry Chiling, William Walker, Nettie, etc), but most are nothing more than paycheck suckers.

Most of us here have devoted a significant amount of time learning and perfecting our skills. Skills that may be extinct?

Edging and surfacing has become overrun with robotics. Skilled labor in the lab is almost non-existent.

Dr. Sheedy wrote about "Opticianry at a Crossroads" a few years back. Have we taken the wrong fork in the road?



Just curious. I have my opinion. A few others on here share a similar vision. We are not only alive and kicking, we are ready to kick the optical worlds flabby bottum and take this business to new heights!

My thoughts.

And yours?

:cheers::cheers::cheers:

[Alan W]

Dear Fezz

I honestly believe it's an identity crisis.
A serious one. And, perhaps, suicidal.
Our ranks are filled with supressed individuals whose sense of entrepreneurism died a long time ago when OD's and MD's said "Keep your mouth shut and do as I tell you." Now, opticianary believes it is best to remain silent and "boxed in" on scope of service.

While MD's have expanded their scope to include what everyone else calls cosmetician, and OD's are trying to be what MD's used to be, opticians are paralyzed and can't look beyond what they have been for years. They can't even think like their European counterparts. While chains drive the entrance requirement down to be in the optical department, with the promise of continuing education, 90% of the salaries remain substandard.

It's time for change, if not too late. And, it's up to the newest generation to do it. Todays optician needs to be something beyond what exists.

[Fezz]

Todays optician needs to be something beyond what exists.

Exactly!!!! Great point.

But, what and how?

[Dave Nelson]

refract.

[Judy Canty]

Educate first...minimum at the associate degree level.

[Alan W]

1, Refract . . . (Good, Dave). You don't need to be a doctor to figure out what the majority of people need glasses for. Machines do a better job than most ophthalmologists.
2, Form a Specialty Certification Group that the public will recognize as expert beyond the pervue of Optometry and Ophthalmology like Frame Design/Manufacturist, Cosmetics, etc....everything a white coat isn't!
3, Form a Marketing Group that will promote (market) opticians as the only real technicians in the industry and everyone else is a doctors gopher!
4, Show the public that doctors don't grind lenses, technicians do, and technicians are the only ones who can be sure a doctors prescription is ground on lenses, cause that's their reason for being! And, if it wasn't for opticians in a lab, etc. doctors would be "you know what" out of luck!
5, Tell the public frames are NOT made by doctors and ophthalmic technicians. And, everything about frames and lenses is the way it is because an optical technician was involved before it ever reached the neighborhood doctor.
6, Teach our own that it's OK to be a technician. Not everyone needs to be a doctor, nor should be.

[nickrock]

National certification

[chip anderson]

If refraction is not a part of "a routine eye exam anymore" and appearently not part of a "medical or optometric exam or diagnosis" perhaps we should become what optometrist started as "refracting opticians" after all it's not part of medicine or optometry anymore they probably won't mind and I'm sure they will be happy to petition the legistatures to remove all the restrictions they have placed upon us.
The patients will no doubt be getting thier "medical eye exams" routinely from them and we will have no responsiblilty for the patient's health, they will.

We will just make them see.

Chip

[Judy Canty]

Educate then legislate and expand our scope of practice. We will remain at the bottom of the ophthalmic food chain until we are educated at the post secondary level.

[Alan W]

It's not an issue of educating first. It's an issue of educating always. But, when push comes to shove, the public automatically assumes everyone who serves them in an allied medical profession is educated. Unlike every other allied medical service opticians simply don't promote themselves. And, if they don't promote themselves, they float in on the "rep" of a higher being. Ophthalmic techs float in with the doctor. Opticians don't unless that small percentage works for one. Opticians don't organize. They don't sell themselves. Even those with degrees (I have an AA and BS) don't sell themselves. And, when you say educate first, why not say educate the public first on what an optician is? Educating ones self is one thing. Educating the public is something completely different. That's what is not happening. The public is not SOLD on opticianry. To this day the public still things opticians deliver babies. They still call us "optricians". Let's face it . . .who's kidding who? WE have done a p*** poor job of informing/selling the public on the guy (gender not implied) who took the little piece of paper the doctor wrote and converting it into . . . a pair of glasses. Nobody to blame but us chickens for allowing ourselves to be a supressed profession. Keep up the good work educating internally. Now, who's out there who will lead the pack in promoting us?

[Judy Canty]

So long as any other member of the ophthalmic community can point to our lack of formal education and use that fact to deny the legitimacy of professional opticianry, we will remain who and where we are. Most of the public assumes we are college educated. We don't need to "sell" them, we need to "sell" ourselves on the value of a formal education, much like Optometry did a century ago. We are and have always been our own worst enemies.

[rbaker]

A few years ago I calculated the percentage of “opticians” in the United States with a formal two year education in opticianry (or whatever the program was called.) I was really not surprised that it was less than one tenth of one percent of the work force. I drew my data from the Department of Labor and the NFOS.

With such a low percentage of academically trained people how can we be taken seriously when this fact comes to the light of day.

With but a few exceptions opticianry is not dead – it’s a joke!

.

[Dave Nelson]

So then the answer is to combine all three Os into one profession, and call it Opticiamologometrist?;)

[orangezero]

Opthalmologists go to school for how long, and have had good public awareness for how long?

Optometrists, same thing? Do they even have good public awareness? Has commercial ruined this?

Now, I'm not trying to be mean here, but honestly, how as a profession do you ever think opticianry will "move up the food chain?"

Do we need another profession that has the same skill set as one that already is there?

A bit misguided thinking in my view.

Is it that hard to get vision services in any area? Are there not $30 or free exams almost everywhere? Is refraction really going to help the average optician?

What percentage of opticians would be willing to undergo the extra training? Not being mean, but would those that already feel comfortable refracting honestly be willing to spend the money and time to take classes to become refractionists and become recognized by law as able to perform the services? I'm sure some will say yes, but enough to actually make a difference?

Would this do anything to help opticians as a whole? Or just further segregate and divide the professions?

My view on this is that nationwide public awareness campaigns would do very little. It has to come on a more individual basis. Have to differentiate yourself from the uneducated people (at least some) at the walmarts and other retail places. If you are just the same as them, is the extra training really necessary??

I am not trying to offend or talk down at all. hope it doesn't come across as that.

I think most professions deal with this, to some degree. Only if there is a problem do you have the public feeling like there is some professionalism involved. If its transparent and goes off without a hitch, then perhaps its never even thought of. Hard to force people to step back and say, "wait, what we do is very important and is difficult to do." They just want to get on to the next shopping center or go home and watch TV, or now, the internet.

Don't get me started on retail and the way it affects the 3 Os image.

[Framebender]

is becoming more important everywhere and I agree with Judy that there needs an educational thrust. I believe that there also needs to be a mentoring thrust.

Opticians, as a whole, are some of the most creative people I know. We have the ability to create something from nothing. We have the ability to find a need and fill it. We can fabricate and make money. These are skills that need to be passed on too. Just like they were passed to us.

I believe that young Opticians will not only survive, but thrive. Our best and brightest are already adapting to the changes in the business. My hope is that they learn to pull together. Something we didn't do such a great job of.

I don't know what the answer is, but I'm glad we're talking about it!!

:cheers:

[ziggy]

National certification

Although I agree with Judy 100%, Nick hit the nail on the head. For goodness sakes folks, how would we expect opticians to spend 2+ years and (aprox)$15K on a degree when the vast majorty of the people working in the field will not spend 2 months and $150 to get the ABO??:hammer:If you are in a position to do so, require every one thats works with you to obtain the ABO/NCLE. You can also help your fellow opticians by insuring that the chains are opperating with in the law, and if they are not then report them to your state boards.

[OPTIDONN]

Opthalmologists go to school for how long, and have had good public awareness for how long?

Optometrists, same thing? Do they even have good public awareness? Has commercial ruined this?

Now, I'm not trying to be mean here, but honestly, how as a profession do you ever think opticianry will "move up the food chain?"

Do we need another profession that has the same skill set as one that already is there?

A bit misguided thinking in my view.

Is it that hard to get vision services in any area? Are there not $30 or free exams almost everywhere? Is refraction really going to help the average optician?

What percentage of opticians would be willing to undergo the extra training? Not being mean, but would those that already feel comfortable refracting honestly be willing to spend the money and time to take classes to become refractionists and become recognized by law as able to perform the services? I'm sure some will say yes, but enough to actually make a difference?

Would this do anything to help opticians as a whole? Or just further segregate and divide the professions?

My view on this is that nationwide public awareness campaigns would do very little. It has to come on a more individual basis. Have to differentiate yourself from the uneducated people (at least some) at the walmarts and other retail places. If you are just the same as them, is the extra training really necessary??

I am not trying to offend or talk down at all. hope it doesn't come across as that.

I think most professions deal with this, to some degree. Only if there is a problem do you have the public feeling like there is some professionalism involved. If its transparent and goes off without a hitch, then perhaps its never even thought of. Hard to force people to step back and say, "wait, what we do is very important and is difficult to do." They just want to get on to the next shopping center or go home and watch TV, or now, the internet.

Don't get me started on retail and the way it affects the 3 Os image.

I have to say that I agree. I think we need to re-define what an optician is. I for one don't see any real benefit with having opticians refract (I'm not for or against it). I think that we need to position our self where there seems to be the biggest void and that is in optics. OD's are widening thier scope to be more medical. I've said this before but optometry schools don't place the same emphasis on optics like they used to. We need to become THE TECHNICAL EXPERTS when it comes to optics, lens design etc. I see OD's and MD's asking opticians about lens designs quite often, we should move on this. We should attempt to be more like a pharmacist. You don't see them chomping at the bit shouting "we should be allowed to prescribe" instead they have become experts in what they do, not some mindless drones shoving pills into bottles. We really should show the expertise when it comes to the technical side of ophthalmic lenses. The biggest thing opticianry needs is education. Untill we can bring this to the opticians who desire it and motivate those who don't care we are lost. But opticianry will always be here because no one else wants to do what we do:D

[tmorse]

Educate first...minimum at the associate degree level.

This dogma is precisely what will continue to divide US opticianry in the future. AAS happens to be the highest US credential 'degree' offered, but its proponents tend to ignore the fact that there are many other avenues to education. The majority of US states have rejected such a A.A.S.requirement and continue to be non-licensed.

A better solution... "Educate first...minimum at the post-secondary level" and leave it at that. Tell someone that their 4-5 years of apprenticesship means nothing is asking for a fight. Suggesting that it takes a minimum two (2) years to learn opticianry skills is also combative.

Canada got it right with its federal government sponsored 'labor mobility' initative, got all the provincial health ministers to agree that opticianry is done in the same manner across the land and set up a National licensing Examination that must be passed to qualify for the title of 'Optician'. Now Canadian opticians can work anywhere across the land.

But even if achieved, the battle continues because the big chains will always try to de-license a jurisdiction for their own ends.

So long as the AAS holders say "sure let's unite, but first come up to my educational level", unification progress will halt. Too many ego's in high places will always carry the day.

[SRL]

I've been following this thread and while there are a lot of good ideas here, there also seems to be a lot of disagreement about just what the role of an optician is. Having been in the business for more than thirty years, I have seen, as many of you have, many changes in the profession. However, throughout the years, the basic function of an optician has not changed.
Optometrist and Ophthalmologist must all complete essentially the same amount of education (per discipline) in every school that they attend. The only variable being obtaining a state license.
Opticianry, on the other hand, is so dissimilar from state to state that there isn't even a semblance of standardization. Licensed states, non-licensed states, ABO, NCLE etc. From my point of view, criticizing any faction of the profession is moot until such time as there is a standardized, state to state, licensing proceedure to ensure that everyone practicing opticianry has acquired the same degree of expertise and is recognized unilaterally as being proficient in their respective field.
How many of you have seen "opticians" with an ABO certification that you wouldn't let wash your car?
Education is definitely the key, but IMHO, until such time as we can all agree just what the guidelines of the profession are, and establish some sort of standardized and accepted licensure, then we are just all saber rattling.
I currently work for an independent optician who has been in the business for 50 years. (Yes, he's eighty years old.) I consider myself very fortunate to be in a position to hear about the really old times and learn from him. We have no doctor, and do no advertising, yet he has a thriving business due to HIS expertise, reputation, and the calibre of people he employs. He, as I, do not aspire to refracting or any other aspects that we feel are not a part of our PROFESSION. We do our job, and do it well and consequently have a strong following that comes to us because of the quality of our work.

[Chris Ryser]

I have to put in a word ..............................

Opticians always wanted to more than what they actually are. Go back in history, it is a mechanical service job.

I have seen how lousy glasses are being adjusted in doctors offices, it seems nobody is trained to do a proper job.

Optician have to compete in the basics of the profession which the other O's don't and can not do. The basic skills when properly learned will make opticians turn out a much better end product than a doctors office can. :finger:

[Alan W]

While everybody is back in school going for their 2 year degree in opticianry, which tells me it's going to be 2 years before anybody recognizes them for their education, somebody with a degree in marketing should do what marketing professionals do . . .

Make things happen!

While some are thinking a degree in opticianry is the magic bullet, I'd like to hear from some optician with a marketing degree. It's beyond me to think that we think that small. Education creates skills. Marketing sells it. Anybody who disagrees needs to take a few night classes in marketing.

Bottom line is, opticians don't seem to know what the bottom line is.

[Judy Canty]

Education creates skills. Marketing sells it.

I think it will be difficult to market and sell something you don't have.

[Ory]

Donn, FYI: Pharmacists prescribing

I think the general consensus of more formal education is a great idea. The issue is, and always will be, that legislators (and the public at large) don't see specs and CLs as in the same class as medications. If they did you can bet Great Glasses would have been shut down years ago.

Of course, expanding your scope is a good way of ensuring your success. There are two ways to do this: Educate yourself to the point where it is unreasonable to deny a scope expansion, or just start doing it and say "see, no harm done!"

The second option is available in optical the way it isn't in pharmacy and it is by far easier. Guess which one people will choose. Unfortunately as many opticians in the US list their credentials as the hand-written name tag they were given 5 minutes ago, this really doesn't help the profession as a whole.

The first step in my opinion is to develop some national standard. It doesn't matter what the educational requirements are, you can expand that later. Make it mandatory for every optician in the country, even if it is just filling out a web-based test.

Just the opinion of a no-good OD.

[chip anderson]

The point behind having opticians refract is: One would no longer have to depend on the patient getting back to one with an Rx written by someone who is at the very least a compeditor and doing his best to steer the patient to his store. At present appearently even the "most honorable" doctors feel obligated to send patients back to a referring source only after being recently referred. Such obligations appearently no longer extend to the patient's visits to the refractionist in subsequent years and most certianly no longer extend to subsequent members of the patient's family. Patient's family members are immeadiately assimilated into the refractionist's optical operation.
Hell if I could put the patient in front of a machine (If I could afford one) spend 10 min with a retinascope and proceed with the optical operation without the sending the patient to a doctor I would today. And yes, I do recognise and see the need for a "medical eye exam". I just think we were much more comfortable as opticians when the doctor was not a compeditor or employer. The only reasons I would entertain the thought of refraction are: "The great risk of the patient being "accidentally assimilated" into the doctors optical sales operation. The doctors now appearently don't care or bother to refract accurately anymore. The convienence to the patient as they often must wait six weeks or more to see a prescriber and as is now happening the doctor won't do a refraction or furnish an Rx when he sees them. Lastly, doctors seem to no longer be bright enough in the case of rigid lens wears to refract over a lens, although I am sure that they know refracting immeadiately after removal of such lenses is useless.

Chip

[OPTIDONN]

oh man! Thanks Ory for ruining a key point of mine;)