Opticians Becoming like Haberdashers?

[Excalibur]

Whos padding their pockets now doc??

Please read the entire thread before posting such a ridiculous statement.

Two certified optometric technicians in consultation with the doctor are more than able to assist in managing the same case load as one doctor and one optician working co-operatively in a clinical setting. The technicians cost slightly more than the salary of the optician so how is this allowing me to "pad my pockets?". My way of 'doing things' cost me more in payroll! Are you really that bad at simple math that lets you make this allegation? (aren't opticians at least supposed to be good in math-- you need to at least be able transpose cylinders and make other optical calculations, right?)

Remember that these people are working with me IN MY PRACTICE, under MY SUPERVISION and I see the file, provide the management plan and diagnosis and discharge the patient when they case is completed. How is that a disadvantage to the patient? The only person who is disadvantaged is an over-priced optician!

[Excalibur]

As revealing as this thread is as to how little respect there is cross-profession in this industry, I honestly think it should be closed. It's been nothing but mudslinging for the past few pages, and while there is truth to both sides of this argument, its obvious that neither side is going to sway the other. This is a professional forum, and a lot of the posts in this thread haven't been anywhere near that caliber. If you really want to have this debate, the PM system would probably be a better bet than this open forum. The public can read this, and it shows badly on the entire Opthalmic community to see such bickering. :\

I agree with most of your commentary, however, I will not let sight testers have their way at the risk of public safety so they can pad their pockets.

[For-Life]

I agree with most of your commentary, however, I will not let sight testers have their way at the risk of public safety so they can pad their pockets.

You will find most people on this forum is against site testing. We see it both ways

[HarryChiling]

Before it gets closed lets shed some light about all those cases of pathology that are missed:

http://www.nei.nih.gov/eyedata/pbd_tables.asp

You can see from the data that when the number of patients with pathology according to age becomes a risk they are already outside of the age limits of sight testing opticians. It might be more likely that a patinet would have a reaction to some of the more commonly used drops in the office than if they were to have pathology and fit the requirements of seeing a sight testing optician.

[Excalibur]

You will find most people on this forum is against site testing. We see it both ways

That is reassuring.

[Excalibur]

Before it gets closed lets shed some light about all those cases of pathology that are missed:

http://www.nei.nih.gov/eyedata/pbd_tables.asp

You can see from the data that when the number of patients with pathology according to age becomes a risk they are already outside of the age limits of sight testing opticians. It might be more likely that a patinet would have a reaction to some of the more commonly used drops in the office than if they were to have pathology and fit the requirements of seeing a sight testing optician.

Let's not try to justify that independent sight testing is somehow designed for the better good of society. The people listed here http://www.optometrists.bc.ca/webupl...studies_04.pdf were all quite young, assessed by sight testers, and harmed despite the fact that there were alleged 'safety measures' (that were ignored by sight testers) in place.

[mike.elmes]

This thread has not one iota of useful information. In fact it has done nothing more than stir the pot of animosity between Optometry and Opticianry...

In Alberta and BC where sight testing is an accepted everyday practice, we don't have the friction between professions I see in Ontario.
Clearly this thread was started to insult Opticians.

[Excalibur]

This thread has not one iota of useful information.
In Alberta and BC where sight testing is an accepted everyday practice, we don't have the friction between professions I see in Ontario.

You must be joking.

If there wasn't any animosity, would the BC association had bothered to collect this information?

http://www.optometrists.bc.ca/webupl...studies_04.pdf

[mike.elmes]

What we have is Optometry fear mongering and defending their turf.:finger:
The public doesn't need legislation forcing a complete medical examination every time they need an update of their glasses.

[LandLord]

I'm probably not one of the sharpest tools in the shed either, but I'm not sure I understand why refractions and health assessments must be inextricably and legally tied. Sure, a refraction is an opportunity for an exam, but don't people without refractive errors require eye exams? So, why not take it a step further and make it a legal requirement that every man, woman, and child visit their local OD for an annual exam. And while we are passing nanny legislation, throw in annual mammographies, prostate exams, colonoscopies, blood tests, and any other exam you can think of that might be good for me. ...and of course the tax pay... I mean the Government should pay for it all.

The bottom line is independently refracting opticians would deal a huge financial blow to the optometric profession (which I can sympathize with) but any other arguments are BS and smoke and mirrors.

Given the current state of affairs, I don't think ODs have much cause for concern.

-Keith

Hats off to a true post.

[LandLord]

Their agenda is simply profit ahead of principle

Simple economics is why I won't hire an optician.

Humour me, Excalibur. What kind of car do you drive? Be honest, now.

[LandLord]

The people listed here http://www.optometrists.bc.ca/webupl...studies_04.pdf were all quite young, assessed by sight testers, and harmed despite the fact that there were alleged 'safety measures' (that were ignored by sight testers) in place.

I'd like to see a list of people that were harmed by the average Walmart optometrist who pumps out 40 scripts a day and overlooks many pathologies.

[LandLord]

You must be joking.

If there wasn't any animosity, would the BC association had bothered to collect this information?

http://www.optometrists.bc.ca/webupl...studies_04.pdf

Come on Mother Teresa, OD. Do you really believe that optometrists don't care about their "refracting turf?" Do you donate ALL of your exam fees to charity?

Let me guess. You see 20+ patients a day and have a high conversion rate. You make $250K.

[Excalibur]

Humour me, Excalibur. What kind of car do you drive? Be honest, now.

BMW 3 series.

[Excalibur]

Come on Mother Teresa, OD. Do you really believe that optometrists don't care about their "refracting turf?" Do you donate ALL of your exam fees to charity?

Let me guess. You see 20+ patients a day and have a high conversion rate. You make $250K.

1. Optometrists do care about their scope of practice, and the degradation of quality of eye care that independent sight testing brings to the eye care community.

2. I do donate to various charities. I have a family to support too. Do you donate all your 300% markups on glasses (typical optical shop markups) to charity?

3. I see 15 to 25 patients per day. This is a mix of full and partial visits.

4. I make far less than 250K/annum

[Excalibur]

What we have is Optometry fear mongering and defending their turf.:finger:
The public doesn't need legislation forcing a complete medical examination every time they need an update of their glasses.

A full ocular assessment is NOT necessarily performed EVERY time a patient is assessed in a primary care practice. It is assessed based on the doctor's judgment. The frequency depends on the patient's risk profile, which is determined from the information gathered from previous visits.

When a patient visits an independent sight tester, a risk profile cannot be generated as the sight tester is incapable of making any risk profile judgment.

[Excalibur]

I'd like to see a list of people that were harmed by the average Walmart optometrist who pumps out 40 scripts a day and overlooks many pathologies.

You'd love to see a list but you'd be hard pressed to find one. An average Walmart doctor is far more competent and safer than an average sight tester.

[mike.elmes]

A full ocular assessment is NOT necessarily performed EVERY time a patient is assessed in a primary care practice. It is assessed based on the doctor's judgment. The frequency depends on the patient's risk profile, which is determined from the information gathered from previous visits.

When a patient visits an independent sight tester, a risk profile cannot be generated as the sight tester is incapable of making any risk profile judgment.

Obviously you know NOTHING of the restrictions in place to prevent patients who fall into this risk profile from being tested. Also they have been seen by an ophthalmologist or optometrist within the past 2-4 years, and it is there that their ocular health has been assessed.

[Excalibur]

Obviously you know NOTHING of the restrictions in place to prevent patients who fall into this risk profile from being tested. Also they have been seen by an ophthalmologist or optometrist within the past 2-4 years, and it is there that their ocular health has been assessed.

How are you able to guarantee the person is (or will be) assessed by an OMD and OD?

[AdmiralKnight]

What he's saying is to have the refraction done in the first place, they must have had a health checkup within the past 2-4 years. Presumably varified by a quick call to the office where it was done. After that, it's up to THEM to get them back in for the health check. You can't force people to go. It's up to them.

[mike.elmes]

How are you able to guarantee the person is (or will be) assessed by an OMD and OD?

The patient signs a form saying that they must have seen an OD/OMD
in the past 2-4 years....it is very clear as to its purpose. Informed consent.

[Excalibur]

What he's saying is to have the refraction done in the first place, they must have had a health checkup within the past 2-4 years. Presumably varified by a quick call to the office where it was done. After that, it's up to THEM to get them back in for the health check. You can't force people to go. It's up to them.

Fair enough. So if this patient/customer's information cannot be verified by a quick call, then the sight test will not be performed?

I don't mean to bust anybody's chops here, and I'm truly sorry if I've offended anyone here but I am very passionate about ensuring that the public be protected. I have not yet been convinced that sight testers have the public's best interest at heart, as I like to think I do in my own practice, however in time I might be.

[mike.elmes]

From a completely different standpoint, the Eyelogic system derives a completely reliable, and incredibly accurate final Rx. Better than many of the OMD/OD's in our area. Thus I find the consumer satisfaction to be incredible.

[chip anderson]

Excalbur:

Don't know about where you are but here we have a very large segment of the population that would prefer not to be "protected" unless they do so by thier own chosing.
I know this goes against many campaign stratagies but many of us would just like to left the H*ll alone.

Chip

[Excalibur]

From a completely different standpoint, the Eyelogic system derives a completely reliable, and incredibly accurate final Rx. Better than many of the OMD/OD's in our area. Thus I find the consumer satisfaction to be incredible.

The refraction on an Eyelogic may be solid. Maybe. That really doesn't address the safety issue that I keep going back to. How many of these people had an independent site test?

http://www.optometrists.bc.ca/webupl...studies_04.pdf

Were they happy?