Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Interesting Ce news

  1. #1
    Bad address email on file John R's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Yorkshire, U.K.
    Occupation
    Consumer or Non-Eyecare field
    Posts
    3,189

    Thumbs down Interesting Ce news

    I see we have found a way now to ensure that anybody needing new lenses has to purchase a new frame..
    Not sure if this is Europe wide or just the UK.
    Quote from Ce requirements as of 30 June 2001
    Patients’ Own Frames
    Again as a reminder, where patients’ spectacles are repaired to bring them back to their original configuration, then such repairs are not covered by the Medical Devices Directive. Members need only use their own controls.

    'Where a new prescription for lenses is intended for an existing frame, then members must ensure the frames conform to the Essential Requirements (Medical Devices Directive – Appendix 1). Since it was very difficult to establish the integrity of used frames, this means, in effect:

    'Existing patients’ frames may not be used for re-glazing with new prescription lenses, except in exceptional circumstances.

    'Although there has been speculation that no action would be taken if old frames were re-glazed, members are advised that the above statement reflects the current legal position.

    'Deviation from this position would be at members own risk.’

    I notice there is no explanation of "Exceptional circumstances"
    Talk about fleceing the punter...

  2. #2
    Master OptiBoarder Joann Raytar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    4,948
    Have they defined "exceptional circumstances?"

    This sounds very much like the "Duty To Warn" debate going on over polycarbonate.

  3. #3
    Bad address email on file Corey Nicholls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Canberra, ACT, Australia
    Posts
    196

    Question A Question.....

    Could it have possibly been a frame manufacturer that put together the submission?

  4. #4
    Bad address email on file John R's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Yorkshire, U.K.
    Occupation
    Consumer or Non-Eyecare field
    Posts
    3,189

    Unhappy well said young man

    This has also been getting an airing
    here to
    Seems everbody is of the same mind.

  5. #5
    Master OptiBoarder Joann Raytar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    4,948
    It is most likely that someone ended up being sued over re-using a patients own frame. The frame probably broke on the person and resulted in some form of injury.

  6. #6
    Bad address email on file John R's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Yorkshire, U.K.
    Occupation
    Consumer or Non-Eyecare field
    Posts
    3,189

    Question yea but

    Could you blame the problem with reglazing though ? It's more likly that the person owinng the frame has adused the it :D

    Once again the EEC causes more problem than it solves....

  7. #7
    Master OptiBoarder Alan W's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Seabrook, TX.
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    923

    Re: POF's

    In my mind it is much easier to identify specific criteria which can exclude the use of a POF. We all know that certain physical factors that are present may lead to frame breakage and liability issues.
    I am against the reuse of frames for several reasons. Interestingly, after working in several different markets, some seem to exibit greater tendencies towards recycling, and it may mean handling by technicians can cause damage or breakage to a frame that appears to be intact. Denying the profit factor would be hypocrtical, but other causes for not using recycled frames are far more substantive.

    Examples:
    1, Senior clientelle may opt to reuse older but higher quality frames than new cheap ones.
    2, Hinge barrel that have been spread make for potential disaster even if presently just loose.
    3, Pantoscopic curves have been exaggerated by the patient in order to bring the temples in may weaken or break at solder points in the "truing" procedure.

    I have the inclination to think that somewhere behind the scenes in the authoring of laws restricting recycling of frames both safety, liability, AND profit are motivators.

  8. #8
    Master OptiBoarder Joann Raytar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    4,948
    Like Alan, I think they should have listed certain criteria. For example, if the frame has been soldered or the screw barrel drilled or tapped by an inexperienced tech and basically too thin for reuse or if a plastic eyewire has been previously rolled and won't come back into a usable state.

  9. #9
    Bad address email on file John R's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Yorkshire, U.K.
    Occupation
    Consumer or Non-Eyecare field
    Posts
    3,189
    Its interesting to note that the bodies that could help define how this should be handled namely FODO and the FMO are mearly point out the changes and when they come into effect but giving no help at all as to what the defernition of exceptional circumstances are to be. But hey thats England for you, keep your head down and hope it all blows over, then take all the credit for sorting it out.....

  10. #10
    Bad address email on file John R's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Yorkshire, U.K.
    Occupation
    Consumer or Non-Eyecare field
    Posts
    3,189

    Wave hold it hold it

    Well what a turn up after one week they have changed their minds and reglazes are now allowed as the product has not changed hands Its still owned by the customer...
    I can see many opticians ringing up customers to say sorry but we can now reglaze your frame but you will still have to pay for the new frames and lenses as they have already been made...
    Or will they just not bother to save face :D

  11. #11
    Bad address email on file Corey Nicholls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Canberra, ACT, Australia
    Posts
    196
    Summed up in a word-

    BUREAUCRACY! - Or FOOLS for short!

  12. #12
    Bad address email on file Rick-Strong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Dartmouth, NS, CA
    Posts
    59

    POF

    I dont think I would want to be there when the Optician says one year later, Sorry Sir, you cannot use your $300.oo Titan frame again.

  13. #13
    Bad address email on file John R's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Yorkshire, U.K.
    Occupation
    Consumer or Non-Eyecare field
    Posts
    3,189

    Wave he he

    Yea thats what a lot of opticians were saying as well here, just how do you explain to a punter that you cannot reglaze their old frames any more with out losing all your customers because there will always be Joe Blogs down the street who will do it.....

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Interesting VE News
    By John R in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-30-2002, 12:39 PM
  2. Optical Dispensing News
    By Joann Raytar in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-05-2002, 08:51 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
OptiBoard is proudly sponsored by:
Younger Optics and Vision Equipment